Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jul 20;15(7):e0236120. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236120

A metrologically traceable protocol for the quantification of trace metals in different types of microplastic

Lars Hildebrandt 1,2, Marcus von der Au 3,4, Tristan Zimmermann 1, Anna Reese 1,2, Jannis Ludwig 5, Daniel Pröfrock 1,*
Editor: Martin Koller6
PMCID: PMC7371195  PMID: 32687518

Abstract

The presence of microplastic (MP) particles in aquatic environments raised concern about possible enrichment of organic and inorganic pollutants due to their specific surface and chemical properties. In particular the role of metals within this context is still poorly understood. Therefore, the aim of this work was to develop a fully validated acid digestion protocol for metal analysis in different polymers, which is a prerequisite to study such interactions. The proposed digestion protocol was validated using six different certified reference materials in the microplastic size range consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene and polyvinyl chloride. As ICP-MS/MS enabled time-efficient, sensitive and robust analysis of 56 metals in one measurement, the method was suitable to provide mass fractions for a multitude of other elements beside the certified ones (As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, Sb, Sn and Zn). Three different microwaves, different acid mixtures as well as different temperatures in combination with different hold times were tested for optimization purposes. With the exception of Cr in acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, recovery rates obtained using the optimized protocol for all six certified reference materials fell within a range from 95.9% ± 2.7% to 112% ± 7%. Subsequent optimization further enhanced both precision and recoveries ranging from 103% ± 5% to 107 ± 4% (U; k = 2 (n = 3)) for all certified metals (incl. Cr) in acrylonitrile butadiene styrene. The results clearly show the analytical challenges that come along with metal analysis in chemically resistant plastics. Addressing specific analysis tools for different sorption scenarios and processes as well as the underlying kinetics was beyond this study’s scope. However, the future application of the two recommended thoroughly validated total acid digestion protocols as a first step in the direction of harmonization of metal analysis in/on MP will enhance the significance and comparability of the generated data. It will contribute to a better understanding of the role of MP as vector for trace metals in the environment.

1. Introduction

Anthropogenic litter, especially highly persistent plastic litter, has become a global problem [13]. The hypothesis that microplastic (MP) may be a vector for potentially harmful chemicals (“Trojan horse effect”) has gained “paradigm status” among scientists focusing on the occurrence and effects of MP [47]. Numerous studies have examined in particular the sorption of hydrophobic organic chemicals, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins, phthalates and polychlorinated biphenyls to MP [811] and their further transfer to organisms via MP [1215].

In general, the toxicity of heavy metals such as As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, Sb, Sn present in the marine environment is well studied and documented [1618]. Nevertheless, in contrast to the MP-mediated transport of organic contaminants, the analogous transport of metals and the related adsorption and desorption processes remain poorly understood. Two scenarios are currently being considered in this context.

Firstly, inorganic and organic metal compounds are introduced to plastics as additives during manufacturing to adjust their specific properties, i.e. as heat stabilizers, fillers, pigments, biocides, flame retardants, slip agents [1927], or as polycondensation catalyst in case of industrial PET production (Sb2O3) [28].

Secondly, a comparably new finding is that metal ions sorb to MP in water bodies [29, 30]. Several studies have focused on the mass fractions of selected metals associated with MP particles that were collected in the environment (Table 1). The US Environmental Protection Agency has published a white paper in 2016 that addresses the scientifically observed sorption of metals to plastics in aquatic systems [31]. The authors of this white paper call for more research to elucidate the role of sorption and transfer of toxic heavy metals via MP.

Table 1. Overview of the existing publications on the metal content of MP collected in the (aquatic) environment.

Author Metals MP size (d) Sorbate Reagents for digestion Certified reference material Digestion recoveries Analytical technique
Ashton et al. (2010) [32] Ag, Al, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Pb, Sb, Sn, U, Zn 3–5 mm PE pellets from beaches in England 2 M HCl and 3 M HNO3 (3:1) LKSD 4 (sediment) 70% - 80% for Al, Co, Fe and Mo ICP-MS, ICP-OES
Holmes et al. (2012) [33] Cd, Cu, Co, Cr, Ni, Pb, Zn > 1 mm PE and PP pellets from beaches in England 20% aqua regia - - ICP-MS, ICP-OES
Turner and Holmes (2015) [34] Ag, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Zn ~ 4 mm PE and PP pellets from beaches in England 20% aqua regia - - ICP-MS (Collision cell)
Vedolin et al. (2017) [35] Al, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Sn, Ti, Zn n.i. PE and PP pellets from beaches in Brazil HNO3, HCl, H2O2 (all conc.) SS-1 EnvironMAT SPC Science -Contaminated Soil - ICP-OES
Wang et al. (2017) [36] Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, Ti, Zn n.i. MP extracted from littoral sediments of a river in China (density separation with NaCl solution) H2O2, HNO3, H2SO4 (all conc.) GBW1004, carrot GBW10044, rice 90%– 113% ICP-MS
Munier and Bendell (2018) [37] Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn Micro- and macroplastic Items from beaches in Canada 10% HNO3 - - AAS
Wijesekar et al. (2018) * [38] Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, Sb, Zn < 50 μm– 1000 μm Microbeads from biosolids collected in Australia (density separation with BaCl2 solution) aqua regia NIST 1643e and NIST 1643 (water standards) - ICP-MS

* Study investigating MP extracted from biosolids.

However, none of the studies listed in Table 1 provides recoveries for the applied digestion or extraction protocol based on usage of a matrix-matched certified reference material (CRM). Even though there are different plastic CRMs for metal analysis available, some studies have used no CRM, whereas others employed unsuited, non-matrix matched CRMs (e.g. water, sediments, soil, sewage sludge, rice or carrot CRMs). Application of such non- or poorly (according to international metrology standards) validated procedures leads to generation of inaccurate, non-traceable and incomparable data. Therefore, in analytical chemistry, using matrix-matched CRMs is indispensable for the generation of comparable and metrologically traceable data as well as the calculation of uncertainty budgets according to the “Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement” (GUM (JCGM 100:2008)) [39]. The formal definition of “uncertainty of measurement” would be: “parameter, associated with the result of a measurement, that characterizes the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand” [39] (measurand in this context may be replaced with concentration for most areas of chemical analysis).

Expanded uncertainties take into account all major potential error contributions (e.g. measurement precision, reproducibility, inhomogeneity of the sample, blank contribution) (Fig 2) and a coverage factor (in the case of assumed normal distribution using ± two combined uncertainties refers to a 95.4% confidence interval). Therefore, uncertainties will not only give a measure of the quality of a result enabling the user to assess the reliability of analytical data, they also facilitate identification of the significant sources of uncertainty in a measurement procedure. Only if there is no overlap of the referring confidence intervals of two means, effects are significant based on a predefined significance level (α). For meaningful assessment of the data on the interactions between metals and MP but also for data on the general abundance of MP particles and fibers [40], thorough method validation and harmonized protocols are needed, including reference materials, inter-laboratory comparison tests and sound applications of existing metrological-analytical concepts.

Fig 2. Fishbone diagram showing the different contributors to the combined uncertainty (uc) of ICP-MS/MS measurements (U: expanded uncertainty; k: coverage factor) [62].

Fig 2

All error contributing to the overall uncertainty must be considered.

Weak acidic extraction/leaching protocols [32, 37], for instance, bear different degrees of selectivity towards different metals and metal species. Additionally, the degree of desorption (achieved by leaching) can vary between different polymer types (depending on the chemical structure of the polymeric chain). Maybe even more importantly, a meaningful assessment of the sorption and desorption behavior cannot be conducted without considering a variety of physical parameters, e.g. permeability, diffusion coefficients, solubility and polarity [41]. Müller et al. (2018) have demonstrated that sorption (and herewith also desorption) of chemicals to MP is highly influenced by polymer-specific parameters such as glass transition temperature and crystallization content [42].

To overcome resulting selectivity differences, it is advisable to put future studies focusing on the role of MP as a vector for metal contaminants either on the basis of a complete microwave-assisted acid digestion (MWAD) protocol [43] or the application of techniques such as laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) for direct surface analysis (in this case a polymer-type-specific matrix matched calibration strategy would be also required for accurate trace metal quantification).

There is already scientific evidence (from polymer testing studies) that shows how challenging the accurate quantification of metals in CRMs of different polymer matrices is [4448]. Dependent on the polymer type, the metal species and the applied digestion conditions, the recoveries can highly vary from a few percent to a quantitative recovery [47, 49].

To overcome these difficulties, this study presents the development of a new, validated MWAD approach for metal analysis in the most important polymeric matrices on the market (in terms of production volume) using five CRMs from different international and national metrology and research institutes, and one certified quality control standard from a chemical company. The polymer types polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which were investigated in this study, account for > 60% of the global plastic production volume [50] and a high share of the MP particles typically detected in aquatic environments [5153]. Despite a market share < 3% [50], acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) was also investigated as a representative of styrene copolymers, since > 40% of plastics in electrotechnical waste are assigned to it [54, 55]. Electrotechnical waste can contain remarkable mass fractions of heavy metals [54, 55] and is often practically unrecyclable.

The aim of this study is to provide a thoroughly validated polymer-specific MWAD protocol for metal analysis in MP for a better understanding of the interactions between MP sampled in different environments and metal contaminants. The protocol provides a basis for the generation of comparable data, which is a primary prerequisite to study the large scale role of interactions between metal contaminants and MP in the environment.

2. Experimental

All experiments based on the MARS 6 and the Discover SP-D 35 (CEM Corp., Kamp Lintfort, Germany) microwaves was carried out at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht. Four digestion batches of the CRM BAM-H010 using the turboWAVE (MLS GmbH, Leutkirch, Germany) and the subsequent multi-elemental analysis were conducted at the Federal Institute of Hydrology. All procedures were performed under clean room conditions. The three microwave systems compared in this study differ in the general construction, but the main practical differences refer to the number of vessels that can be processed at a time, the vessel sizes (section 2.2) and the pressure as well as temperature regulation. Briefly summarized, the MARS 6 and the Discover SP-D 35 (external IR temperature control; pressure vessels) used in this study enable digestion at temperatures up to 230°C and observed pressures up to 24–28 bar, whereas the turboWAVE bears a significantly higher maximum temperature of 300°C and also a significantly higher maximum pressure of 200 bar. In the tuboWAVE, Temperature and pressure are both regulated and controlled in a single reaction chamber filled with inert gas. In contrast to the MARS 6 and the turboWAVE microwave, that feature simultaneous processing of a batch of digestions (40 and 15 vessels), the Discover SP-D 35 (in conjunction with an Explorer autosampler) irradiates the vessels automatically one after another enabling variation of digestion parameters for method development (different conditions for every vessel possible). Please note that this comparison is not meant to be exhaustive, since there are a lot of different vessel types (e.g. for different maximum pressures and temperatures), add-ons features (e.g. for pressure and temperature control) and also other microwave systems available on the market.

2.1 Reference materials, reagents and solutions

Polymer certified reference materials

The two PE CRMs ERM®-EC680m and ERM®-EC681m (elements, low and high level) were purchased from the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC, Ispra, Italy), a PVC (NMIJ CRM 8123-a) and a PP (NMIJ CRM 8133-a) CRM from the National Metrology Institute of Japan (NMIJ, Tsukuba, Japan), an ABS CRM (BAM-H010) from the Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing (BAM, Berlin, Germany) and another PP CRM (Lead in Plastic–QC (trade name)) from Sigma Aldrich (Wyoming, USA).

The chemical structures of the four polymer types are shown in Fig 1. Herewith, the six CRMs refer to four different polymer types and provide certified mass fractions for one to eight metals, while covering a concentration range for selected analytes of five orders of magnitude (Table 2).

Fig 1. Chemical structures of the four corresponding polymer types that were covered by the six CRMs.

Fig 1

Table 2. Overview of used polymer CRMs.
Name of CRM Polymer type Shape Size [μm] * Certified metals Mass fraction range [mg kg-1] **
Lead in Plastic—QC Polypropylene Powder 90 ± 80 (dmax) Pb 376.0 ± 18.9
ERM®- EC680m Polyethylene Pellets (2500 ± 100) × (2960 ± 30) (h × w) As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, Sb, Sn, Zn 2.56 ± 0.16–194 ± 12
ERM®-EC681m Polyethylene Pellets (3760 ± 130) × (2640 ± 120) (h × w) As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, Sb, Sn, Zn 7.0 ± 1.2–1170 ± 40
NMIJ CRM 8123-a Polyvinyl chloride Pellets (3220 ± 70) × (1700 ± 100) (h × w) Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb 95.62 ± 1.39–965.5 ± 6.6
NMIJ CRM 8133-a Polypropylene Spherules 4320 ± 160 (d) Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb 94.26 ± 1.39–949.2 ± 7.5
BAM-H010 Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene Pellets (3130 ± 70) × (2770 ± 60) (h × w) Cd, Cr, Pb; Information value for Hg 93 ± 5–479 ± 17

* 1 SD (n2-6 = 3, n1 = 50

** Ucertified (k = 2).

The particle sizes of these polymer CRMs were determined using a PALM MicroBeam Microscope (Carl Zeiss AG, Oberkochen, Germany). Lead in Plastic—QC (Sigma Aldrich, Wyoming, USA) can be assigned to the small MP size range (< 500 μm), whereas the other five of the six used CRMs fall within the large MP size range (500 μm—5 mm) [56, 57].

Procedures conducted at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht

Laboratory work was performed in a class 10,000 clean room inside a class 100 clean bench. Type I reagent-grade water (18.2 MΩ cm) was obtained from a Milli-Q Integral water purification system (Merck-Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany) equipped with a Q-Pod Element system. P.a. grade nitric acid (HNO3) (65% w/w, Merck-Millipore) and hydrochloric acid (HCl) (30% w/w, Merck-Millipore) were further purified by double sub-boiling in PFA stills (Savillex, Eden Prairie, USA). Tetrafluoroboric acid (HBF4) (38% w/w, Chem-Lab, Zedelgem, Belgium) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) (30% w/w, ultrapure, Merck-Millipore) were used for sample digestion without any further purification. Polyethylene (PE) flasks, tubes and pipette tips (VWR International, Radnor, USA), as well as perfluoroalkoxy (PFA) screw cap vials (Savillex, Eden Prairie, USA) were pre-cleaned in a two-stage washing procedure using diluted HNO3 (10% w/w and 1% w/w respectively). Microwave vessels were cleaned by running the respective MWAD program two times solely with 4 mL HNO3 and 1 mL HCl (without CRM). Subsequently, the vessels were washed 3-times with Milli-Q water.

Procedures conducted at the Federal Institute of Hydrology

The deionized water (18.2 MΩ cm) used was obtained from a Milli-Q water purification system (Merck-Millipore). For sample digestion, the suprapur® nitric acid and suprapur® hydrochloric acid (65% w/w and 30% w/w, respectively, both Merck-Millipore) used were further purified by sub-boiling in PFA stills (Savillex). Hydrogen peroxide (30% w/w, ultrapure, Merck-Millipore) and tetrafluoroboric acid (48% w/w, Sigma Aldrich, Saint Louise, USA) were used without further purification. The PE tubes and the pipette tips (VWR International) were pre-cleaned in 1.3% w/w HNO3.

2.2 Digestion of certified reference materials

About 100 mg of the reference materials ERM®-EC680m, NMIJ CRM 8123-a, NMIJ CRM 8133-a, BAM-H010 and Lead in Plastic—QC, and about 60 mg of ERM®-EC681m were weighed into pre-cleaned 35 mL quartz pressure vials (Discover SP-D 35) or 55 mL MARSXpress TFM® (trade name; cross-linked [(CF2)4-CF(-O-CF2-CF2-CF3)-(CF2)5]n) bombs (MARS 6) (both CEM Corp.), respectively. The respective amount of HNO3, HCl, H2O2 and HBF4 (section 2.1) was added to the microwave vessels containing the CRM. The samples were digested for 15 min up to 80 min at 210°C to 230°C using both the Discover SP-D 35 and the MARS 6 microwave systems. Temperatures of 260°C and 300°C were set for the digestions using the turboWAVE (MLS GmbH) in conjunction with 24 mL TFM® vessels (17 min ramp and 30 min hold time). After digestion, the solution was transferred quantitatively to a 50 mL pre-cleaned DigiTUBE (SCP Science, Quebec, Canada) and diluted to a final volume of 50 mL with Milli-Q water.

2.3 Instrumentation, measurement routines and data processing

2.3.1 Multi-elemental analysis

Multi-elemental analyses of the samples were performed using an inductively coupled plasma—tandem mass spectrometry (ICP-MS/MS) instrument (Agilent 8800, Agilent Technologies, Tokyo, Japan) either coupled to an ESI SC-4 DX FAST autosampler (Elemental Scientific, Omaha, USA) at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht or to an SPS 4 autosampler (Agilent Technologies) at the Federal Institute of Hydrology. Both instruments were optimized in a daily routine using a tuning solution, containing Li, Co, Y, Ce, Tl or Be, In, Ce and U to maintain a reliable day-to-day-performance. Rh and Ir were used as internal normalization standards (Merck-Millipore).

General instrumental settings for the multi-elemental measurements are described in S1 Table in S1 File. Best suitable detection modes ([no gas], [He], [O2] or [H2]) and isotopes were chosen according to recoveries for the in-house quality control multi-element standard solution (Inorganic Ventures), that was rigorously measured at least five times during each measurement batch (S2 Table in S1 File).

2.3.2 Data processing

Multi-elemental data were processed using Mass Hunter version 4.4 (Agilent Technologies, Tokyo, Japan) and a custom written MS Excel© spreadsheet. An outlier evaluation after Dixon’s Q Test [58] was utilized. A Q value of 0.559 (n = 6) was used for outlier evaluation (90% confidence interval).

External linear calibration was applied for quantification. Limits of detection (LOD) and limits of quantification (LOQ) of the method were calculated in accordance with MacDougall et al. (1980) [59] from procedural blanks (n = 3) (S2 Table in S1 File). Combined uncertainties (uc) were calculated for representative samples using a Kragten spreadsheet approach and are reported as expanded uncertainties (U; k = 2) (S3 and S4 Tables in S1 File) [60, 61]. The calculations included the error of weight, error of the volume, as well as instrument (measurement precision) and sample replicates (repeatability) (Fig 2).

Details about the calculation of combined uncertainties for the certified elements can be found in S3 and S4 Tables in S1 File. The significant number of digits of mass fractions are given according to the Guide to the expression of Uncertainty in measurement (JCGM 100:2008) [39] and EURACHEM guidelines [63], whereby the uncertainty determines the significant number of digits to be presented with the value. To evaluate the performance of the analytical procedure, zeta scores (Eq 1) were calculated according to ISO/IEC Guide 43–1:1997 § A.2.1.4 and ISO/DIS 13528 2002 [64, 65]. |zeta| scores below 2 indicate satisfactory results.

zeta=xlabxrefUlab2+Uref2 (1)

Eq 1: Calculation of the zeta score as an important performance indicator.

2.3.3 Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy

1H NMR spectroscopy was applied to characterize the precipitate that occurred during the digestion of BAM-H010. It was carried out on a Bruker Avance 200 at 200 MHz in DMSO-d6 and tetramethyl silane (TMS) was added as internal reference (TMS: δ = 0.00 ppm). Prior to spectroscopic analysis, decomposed ABS was recrystallized from water/ethanol (4:1) after hot filtration.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Method optimization using Discover SP-D 35 and MARS 6 microwaves

Good results in terms of trueness and precision for all six CRMs were achieved by means of a combination of 4 mL HNO3 and 1 mL HCl, and digestion at a temperature of 230°C using the MARS 6 Microwave (20 min ramp and 60 min hold time) (Table 3).

Table 3. Mass fractions for the six digested certified reference materials using two different microwave systems and acid mixtures (5 mL HNO3 for Discover SP-D 35 and 4 mL HNO3 + 1 mL HCl for MARS 6).

Mass fraction (w [mg kg-1] (U; k = 2 (n = 6)))
CRM ERM®-E680m ERM®-E681m BAM-H010 NMIJ CRM 8123-a NMIJ CRM 8133-a Lead in Plastic–QC***
Metal Cert. value Discover SP-D 35 MARS 6 Cert. value Discover SP-D 35 MARS 6 Cert. value Discover SP-D 35 MARS 6 Cert. value Discover SP-D 35 MARS 6 Cert. value Discover SP-D 35 MARS 6 Cert. value MARS 6
As 4.7 ± 0.4 5.03 ± 0.29 4.7 ± 0.7 17.0 ± 1.2 19.5 ± 2.0 16.8 ± 1.7 - < LOD < LOD - < LOD < LOD - < LOD < LOD - 0.14 ± 0.09 (< LOQ)
Cd 20.8 ± 0.9 24.9 ± 1.8 21.7 ± 1.7 146 ± 5 187 ± 19 151 ± 9 93 ± 5 150 ± 13 103 ± 5 95.62 ± 1.39 110.0 ± 2.8 98 ± 6 94.26 ± 1.39 107 ± 3 96 ± 6 - 0.043 ± 0.027
Cr 9.6 ± 0.5 12.9 ± 0.8 9.6 ± 0.8 45.1 ± 1.9 55 ± 6 44.6 ± 2.0 470 ± 36 430 ± 250 1.4 ± 0.4 949.0 ± 9.7 980 ± 40 950 ± 90 895.2 ± 9.6 1050 ± 60 930 ± 50 - 22 ± 7
Hg* 2.56 ± 0.16 - 2.7 ± 0.4 9.9 ± 0.8 - 10.1 ± 1.0 415 ± 27 ** - 404 ± 20 ** 937.0 ± 19.4 - 1020 ± 50 941.5 ± 19.6 - 1050 ± 60 - < LOD
Pb 11.3 ± 0.4 14.0 ± 0.9 11.6 ± 1.2 69.7 ± 2.5 91 ± 9 71 ± 5 479 ± 17 787 ± 76 520 ± 30 965.5 ± 6.6 1110 ± 30 970 ± 50 949.2 ± 7.5 1080 ± 30 1000 ± 80 376.0 ± 18.9 360 ± 10
Sb 9.6 ± 0.7 9.8 ± 3.4 10.0 ± 0.9 86 ± 7 71 ± 7 90 ± 5 - < LOD < LOD - < LOD < LOD - < LOD < LOD - 0.06 ± 0.04
Sn 20.7 ± 1.6 5.4 ± 1.4 21.5 ± 2.0 99 ± 6 23 ± 7 102 ± 7 - < LOD < LOD - < LOD < LOD - < LOD < LOD - 4.2 ± 1.2
Zn 194 ± 12 231 ± 14 205 ± 16 1170 ± 40 1420 ± 130 1210 ± 80 - < LOD < LOD - 575 ± 17 510 ± 150 - 121 ± 4 112 ± 11 - 16 ± 4
|zeta| range - 0.06–7 0.04–0.6 - 1.1–9 0.08–0.5 - 0.17–4 0.3–13 - 1.7–4 0.0019–1.5 2–5 0.3–1.7 - 0.7

* Hg was not measured for the Discover SP-D 35

** Information value for BAM-H010

*** Not digested using Discover SP-D 35.

The use of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) was omitted in order to avoid non-spectral interferences [66] and reduced recoveries for Pb, due to the formation of insoluble sulfates [47]. In General, the addition of H2O2 and HBF4 to the mixture of HNO3 and HCl did not lead to better recoveries (Fig 3) but—in case of H2O2—an increase of pressure in the microwave vessels and higher losses of acid mixture during the digestion were observed. Moreover, an automatic release of the vessel pressure above approximately 24 bar was observed for the Discover SP-D 35 (CEM Corp.). The described uncontrolled losses of acid can impede the accuracy of the process when volatile metals (e.g. Hg) [67, 68] or metal chlorides (with As, Sb, Sn, etc.) are present [49, 6972]. Therefore, the MARS 6 turned out to be better suitable for accurate metal analysis in plastic (Table 3) than the Discover SP-D 35 (both CEM Corp.). This conclusion is clearly reflected by the comparison of |zeta| scores between both microwave systems (Table 3).

Fig 3. Recoveries for the digestion of BAM-H010 using the turboWAVE system at 260°C and 300°C in conjunction with different reagent mixtures (U; k = 2 (n = 3)).

Fig 3

Except for Cr in BAM-H010, all |zeta| scores (Eq 1) for the optimized method were well below 2 indicating satisfactory performance (Table 3). With the exception of Cr in BAM-H010 (0.30% ± 0.02%), the recovery rates for the optimized protocol using the MARS 6 fell within a range from 95.9% ± 2.7% (Pb in Lead in Plastic–QC) to 112% ± 7% (U; k = 2 (n = 6)) (Hg in NMIJ CRM 8133-a) (Table 3, S5–S11 Tables in S1 File). The influence of temperature and acid mixtures on the recovery is expanded on in greater detail in Section 3.2 using the example of BAM-H010 (Fig 3).

Reaching a temperature threshold of 230°C was necessary for the complete dissolution of at least five of the six polymeric matrices. With regard to the PE- (ERM®-E680m and ERM®-EC681m) and PP-based CRMs (NMIJ CRM 8133-a and Lead in Plastic—QC), MWAD at T = 210°C already led to complete dissolution of the materials and acceptable recoveries between 85% and 115%. Complete dissolution of NMIJ CRM 8123-a (PVC) was achieved at a temperature of 230°C.

Nevertheless, BAM-H010 (ABS) could not be fully digested by means of the MARS 6 microwave system (section 3.2). The occurring yellowish precipitate was identified as 4-nitrobenzoic acid by 1H NMR spectroscopy (S1 Fig in S1 File). This confirms the result of single crystal x-ray analysis obtained in another study (dealing with a precipitate resulting from incomplete digestion of BAM-H010) [49]. The results stress the demand for methods capable of also mineralizing MP particles consisting of obstinate thermosettings in order to accurately quantify all relevant contained metals. In contrast to thermoplastics (meltable) and elastomers (viscoelasticity), thermosettings show a considerable resistance to thermal and chemical degradation due to the high degree of cross-linking between the polymer chains.

3.2 Method optimization using the turboWAVE microwave

Due to the occurring yellowish precipitate (ABS, BAM-H010), additional method optimization was conducted by means of testing a further microwave system. The turboWAVE (MLS GmbH) enables higher digestion temperatures and pressures up to 300°C and 200 bar, respectively. In order to optimize the recoveries for BAM-H010, especially with regard to Cr (0.30% ± 0.08% (U; k = 2 (n = 6)), the digestion temperature was elevated to (1) 260°C and (2) 300°C. The ABS matrix was completely dissolved at 260°C. Thus, the experiments demonstrated that raising the temperature from 230°C (section 3.1) to 260°C—whereby 4 mL HNO3 and 1 mL HCl were used in both cases—improves the recovery for Cr from 0.30% ± 0.08% to 71% ± 25% (U; k = 2 (n1 = 6; n2 = 3)). The exclusive use of HNO3 even led to a recovery of 93% ± 4% (U; k = 2 (n = 3)) at 260°C. Recoveries for Cd and Pb were between 100% and 110%. However, none of the three tested reagent mixtures (4 mL HNO3 + 1 mL HCl / 1 mL HBF4 / 1 mL H2O2) yielded recoveries between 90% and 110% for all three certified elements (Fig 3). Based on the first results, HBF4 was excluded from the subsequent digestions.

When the digestion temperature was raised to 300°C, all recoveries fell within an range between 102.4% ± 1.8% and 110.5% ± 2.4% (U; k = 2 (n = 3)) regardless of the used reagent mixture. When looking at the four different reagent combinations (HNO3, HCl, and H2O2), the application of 4 mL HNO3 and 1 mL HCl led to the best results—taking into account both recovery and precision (|zeta| = 0.03–0.29). Even though only half of the recommended minimum sample size of the CRM (100 mg instead of 200 mg) was used [73], it was possible to match the certified values with high precision (Fig 3). The difficulties in recovering Cr from BAM-H010 (compared the other plastic CRMs) can be explained by the nature of the metal species present in the material (Cr2O3). Lethimaki and Väisänen (2017) could also only recover a very small percentage of Cr from BAM-H010 (2.9%) in their study [49]. Cr2O3 and also SnO2, for instance, are considered virtually not accessible by normal acid digestion methods [74]. Thus, in the replacement of ERM®-EC-680/681k by ERM®-EC-680/681m, Cr2O3 and SnO2 were substituted by CaCrO4 and SnS2. However, this study has shown that the application of the turboWAVE at a temperature of 300°C poses an accurate way to dissolve even the most obstinate metal oxides (Fig 3).

3.3 Quantification of non-certified elements

Mass fractions for those eight metals, which are certified for the ERM-branded CRMs, were determined for all other CRMs, for which only one to four metals thereof are certified.

Hereby, high mass fractions of Zn were measured in both NMIJ CRMs (Table 3). Likely due to impurities, mass fraction between 0.043 mg kg-1 ± 0.027 mg kg-1 and 22 mg kg-1 ± 7 mg kg-1 (U; k = 2 (n = 6)) of Cd, Cr (w = 22 mg kg-1 ± 7 mg kg-1), Sb, Sn and Zn were detected in the PP matrix of “Lead in Plastic–QC” (trade name of the CRM) (Table 3).

Out of the 48 additionally studied elements (S2 Table in S1 File), the ones, which could be measured (1) at a defined level of relative uncertainty (Urel) < 20% and (2) with an acceptable recovery of the quality control standard between 90% and 110%, were selected (Table 4). Mass fractions ranged from 0.016 mg kg-1 ± 0.003 mg kg-1 (Y in NMIJ CRM 8123-a) to 7.4 g kg-1 ± 1.0 g kg-1 (Ca in Lead in Plastic–QC) (U; k = 2 (n = 6)).

Table 4. Mass fractions of selected non-certified elements in the certified reference materials (Urel < 20%; Recovery (QC-Standard) = 90% - 110%).

Metal Mass fraction (w [mg kg-1] (U; k = 2 (n = 6))) LOQ [mg kg-1]
ERM®-E680m ERM®-E681m NMIJ CRM 8123-a NMIJ CRM 8133-a BAM-H010 Lead in Plastic—QC
Al 66 ± 8 70 ± 6 < LOQ 95 ± 10 17.6 ± 2.0 1000 ± 200 5
Ba 3.0 ± 0.4 20.8 ± 2.6 Urel > 20% Urel > 20% Urel > 20% Urel > 20% 0.04
Bi < LOQ < LOQ Urel > 20% Urel > 20% 0.200 ± 0.020 Urel > 20% ≥ 0
Ca Urel > 20% Urel > 20% Urel > 20% < LOQ 90 ± 8 7400 ± 1000 4
Co Urel > 20% 0.55 ± 0.10 < LOQ 1.24 ± 0.16 < LOQ Urel > 20% 0.19
Cu 15.9 ± 1.7 115 ± 11 < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ Urel > 20% 0.14
Ga 0.087 ± 0.019 0.59 ± 0.09 < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ 0.023
Ge < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ 7.5 ± 1.6 0.19
K < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ 123 ± 10 Urel > 20% 13
Mg Urel > 20% Urel > 20% Urel > 20% 18.2 ± 1.9 167 ± 16 133 ± 21 1.5
Mo < LOQ Urel > 20% Urel > 20% Urel > 20% Urel > 20% 0.18 ± 0.04 0.005
Ni < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ 1.55 ± 0.23 0.08
Sr Urel > 20% Urel > 20% Urel > 20% < LOQ 0.059 ± 0.013 162 ± 24 0.05
Ti 3.2 ± 0.5 3.2 ± 0.4 < LOQ 2.59 ± 0.24 < LOQ Urel > 20% 0.20
Tl < LOQ Urel > 20% < LOQ < LOQ 0.088 ± 0.010 0.030 ± 0.006 ≥ 0
V < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ 0.220 ± 0.028 2.1 ± 0.4 0.03
Y Urel > 20% Urel > 20% 0.016 ± 0.003 Urel > 20% < LOQ Urel > 20% 0.0007

ERM®-EC680m (low level) and ERM®-EC681m (high level) are both based on the same pure LDPE [74, 75]. Therefore, it is likely that Al and Ti (also found in BAM-H010), which mass fractions do not differ significantly between these two CRMs, were contained in the polymer matrix. LDPE is in contrast to HDPE not synthesized by means of a Ziegler-Natta catalyst [76, 77]. Therefore, TiO2, used as white opacifier [78] or TiO2 nanoparticles as reinforcing components [79, 80] can be suspected as Ti source. Concerning Al, it has been shown that Al2O3 is used as a functional filler to enhance LDPE’s dielectric resistance [81, 82].

Accordingly, high mass fractions of Al were identified in all CRMs (up to 0.1% w/w) except for NMIJ CRM 8123-a. Cu was most probably introduced to the ERM®-EC CRMs via the Pigments 7 and 36, which were employed to also certify Cl and Br mass fractions [74, 75]. The other elements (Ba, Co and Ga) were presumably introduced to the ERM-branded CRMs as impurities in the pigments (oxides and sulfides) used to dope the LDPE with the desired metal mass fractions for certification.

BAM-H010 (ABS) (0.009% w/w) and especially Lead in Plastic—QC (PP) (> 0.7% w/w) contained higher mass fractions of Ca, which is widely used in the form of CaCO3 as mineral filler in plastic industry [83, 84]. The toxic element Tl was homogeneously contained in two of the CRMs, but at low mass fractions (0.030 mg kg-1 ± 0.006 mg kg-1–0.088 mg kg-1 ± 0.010 mg kg-1). While for NMIJ 8123-a (PVC) only Y met the homogeneity criterion (Urel < 20%), 9 further metals were quantifiable in Lead in Plastic—QC. This includes the toxic metal Ni [85], for instance, which is listed in the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) as a priority substance, at a mass fraction of 1.55 mg kg-1 ± 0.23 mg kg-1 (U; k = 2 (n = 6)). Providing information values for metals, for which currently no plastic CRM exists, is helpful for method validation in future studies investigating potential release, sorption and transfer of metal contaminants in aquatic systems mediated by MP particles. For instance, Al, Ni, Co, Ti, Mo and Sr, which could be quantified in the selected CRMs, have already been studied with respect their sorption to MP (Table 1).

3.4 Uncertainty evaluation

Combined uncertainties (uc) were calculated for the determination of all certified metals in the representative CRMs ERM®-EC680m and BAM-H010 using the optimized digestion protocol (section 3.1). Resulting relative expanded uncertainties (Urel = uc,rel × 2) ranged from 5% (Cd) to 8% (As) for ERM®-EC680m and from 2.3% (Cd) to 2.7% (Pb) for BAM-H010 (S12 and S13 Tables in S1 File) (Cr excluded for MARS 6 due to neglectable recovery). Fig 4 shows the relative contribution of the type A errors (result of own measurements/observations) stemming from measurement replicates of the instrument and digest replicates as well as of type B errors (result of external sources) such as the certified errors of the scale and the vessels used for digest dilution to the combined uncertainty. Based on the calculation of uncertainties, the identification of the significant sources of uncertainty in the measurement procedure is possible. Furthermore, it shows which parts of the procedure should be handled with care. Improving these parts of the procedure will significantly reduce the overall uncertainty.

Fig 4. Relative contribution of the errors of the different input parameters to the overall uncertainty: Δβ: Standard deviation of ICP-MS/MS measurement replicates; ΔV: Error of the dilution of the digests; Δm: Error of the scale; ΔC: Standard deviation of the concentrations measured in the digest replicates.

Fig 4

Since the main contribution to the combined uncertainty (> 99%) was assigned to the standard deviation of the sextet digest replicates (defined as repeatability conditions) and the standard deviation of the instrument replicates (measurement precision) (Fig 4), the expanded uncertainties (U; k = 2) for the non-certified metals were given as double combined standard deviations (Eq 2, Table 4).

U(k=2)=2×SDdigestreplicates2+SDintrumentreplicates2 (2)

Eq 2: Calculation of the expanded uncertainty.

However, the reported uncertainties do not take into account reproducibility conditions, e.g. different principle of measurement, measuring instrument or location (GUM (JCGM 100:2008)) [39]. Interlaboratory tests organized and evaluated by the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (2004) have already given valuable insights in the reproducibility limits (2.8 × (SDRepeatability + SDInterlaboratory)0.5) of heavy metal determinations in different polymer matrices (12% - 65% for Pb, Cr and Cd in PU and PVC) [86].

4. Summary and outlook

The present study pursued three main goals:

  1. Provision of MWAD protocols suitable for trace metal analysis on/in MP particles of different plastic types (Table 5)

  2. Provision of data on non-certified present metals in the selected CRMs

  3. Experimental demonstration of the complexity of metal analysis in the material class of synthetic polymers as a highly heterogeneous pool of matrices

Table 5. Recommendation of two MWAD protocols for metal analysis in (particulate) plastic depending on the research question and the available microwave system.

No. (Particulate) plastic of interest Chemical and heat resistance Solubility of metal species Temperature [° C] (microwave systems) Acid mixture (V [mL]) m (plastic) [mg] CRM (polymer type) Ramp time [min] Hold time [min]
1 Most common synthetic polymer materials Low—normal Normal 230 (most commercial MW systems) HNO3 (4), HCl (1) 60–100 ERM-EC680m (PE) and NMIJ 8133-a (PP) 20 60
2 Specialty/high performance polymers High Very low 300 (only special MW systems) HNO3 (4), HCl (1) 200 BAM-H010 (ABS) 20 30

A first optimized protocol yielded good recoveries from 95.9% ± 2.7% to 112% ± 7% (U; k = 2 (n = 6)) for As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Sn, Sb and Zn for six different plastic CRMs (PE, PP, PVC, ABS) (T = 230°C). The low recovery for Cr in ABS (BAM-H010) (0.30% ± 0.05%) constituted the only outlier. Further method optimization by means of a more powerful microwave system (T = 300°C) led to considerable improvements of recovery and precision for the challenging ABS CRM (103% ± 10% - 107 ± 8% (U; k = 2 (n = 3)). ABS is of high relevance as it is a major constituent of electrotechnical waste which can contain high amounts of heavy metals [55]. Therefore, for studies focusing on electrotechnical waste and other very obstinate plastic matrices, we recommend the use of the 2nd proposed protocol (Table 5).

Our findings experimentally underpin the complexity of metal analysis in different polymeric matrices, which has also to be recognized by all scientists analyzing the interactions between metals and MP particles. Therefore it is mandatory to stick to validated protocols applied by other scientific fields, such as materials science and environmental analytical chemistry. Even if weak leaching protocols to extract adsorbed metals are applied (Table 1), validation on the basis of comparison to a complete digestion is indispensable to evaluate the influence of the bulk metal mass fractions.

This knowledge should be taken into account for future analysis of the interactions between metal and particulate plastic contaminants in the aquatic environment. Our main conclusion is that only the application of validated analytical procedures (based on matrix-matched CRMs) generates comparable and significant data on the role of MP as a vector for metals.

For future studies investigating the interactions (sorption and desorption processes and the inherent metal content) between the most common environmental particulate plastic types and metal contaminants, we recommend the use of the 1st proposed MWAD protocol (Table 5) for total acid digestion.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We especially thank Prof. Dr. Frank Sönnichsen (University of Kiel) for providing the NMR spectrometer.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

Anna Reese was funded by the BSH through the project OffChEm (BSH contract code: 10036781, HZG contract code: 17/2017).

References

  • 1.Thompson RC, Olsen Y, Mitchell RP, Davis A, Rowland SJ, John AWG, et al. Lost at Sea: Where Is All the Plastic? Science. 2004;304(5672):838–. 10.1126/science.1094559 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Law KL, Morét-Ferguson S, Maximenko NA, Proskurowski G, Peacock EE, Hafner J, et al. Plastic Accumulation in the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre. Science. 2010;329(5996):1185–8. 10.1126/science.1192321 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bergmann M, Peeken I, Beyer B, Krumpen T, Primpke S, Tekman MB, et al. Vast Quantities of Microplastics in Arctic Sea Ice—A Prime Temporary Sink for Plastic Litter and a Medium of Transport In: Baztan J, Jorgensen B, Pahl S, Thompson RC, Vanderlinden J-P, editors. Fate and Impact of Microplastics in Marine Ecosystems: Elsevier; 2017. p. 75–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Koelmans AA, Bakir A, Burton GA, Janssen CR. Microplastic as a Vector for Chemicals in the Aquatic Environment: Critical Review and Model-Supported Reinterpretation of Empirical Studies. Environmental Science & Technology. 2016;50(7):3315–26. 10.1021/acs.est.5b06069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.de Sá LC, Oliveira M, Ribeiro F, Rocha TL, Futter MN. Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? Science of The Total Environment. 2018;645:1029–39. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.207 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gomiero A, Strafella P, Pellini G, Salvalaggio V, Fabi G. Comparative Effects of Ingested PVC Micro Particles With and Without Adsorbed Benzo(a)pyrene vs. Spiked Sediments on the Cellular and Sub Cellular Processes of the Benthic Organism Hediste diversicolor. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2018;5(99). 10.3389/fmars.2018.00099 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Galloway T, Cole M, Lewis C. Interactions of microplastic debris throughout the marine ecosystem. Nature Ecology & Evolution. 2017;1:0116 10.1038/s41559-017-0116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mato Y, Isobe T, Takada H, Kanehiro H, Ohtake C, Kaminuma T. Plastic Resin Pellets as a Transport Medium for Toxic Chemicals in the Marine Environment. Environmental Science & Technology. 2001;35(2):318–24. 10.1021/es0010498 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Teuten EL, Rowland SJ, Galloway TS, Thompson RC. Potential for Plastics to Transport Hydrophobic Contaminants. Environmental Science & Technology. 2007;41(22):7759–64. 10.1021/es071737s [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Teuten Emma L, Saquing Jovita M, Knappe Detlef RU, Barlaz Morton A, Jonsson S, Björn A, et al. Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2009;364(1526):2027–45. 10.1098/rstb.2008.0284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hartmann NB, Rist S, Bodin J, Jensen LH, Schmidt SN, Mayer P, et al. Microplastics as vectors for environmental contaminants: Exploring sorption, desorption, and transfer to biota. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 2017;13(3):488–93. 10.1002/ieam.1904 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Besseling E, Wegner A, Foekema EM, van den Heuvel-Greve MJ, Koelmans AA. Effects of Microplastic on Fitness and PCB Bioaccumulation by the Lugworm Arenicola marina (L.). Environmental Science & Technology. 2013;47(1):593–600. 10.1021/es302763x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.M Rochman C, Hoh E, Kurobe T, Teh S. Ingested plastic transfers hazardous chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress 2013. 3263 p. 10.1038/srep03263 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Rochman CM, Kurobe T, Flores I, Teh SJ. Early warning signs of endocrine disruption in adult fish from the ingestion of polyethylene with and without sorbed chemical pollutants from the marine environment. Science of The Total Environment. 2014;493:656–61. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.06.051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Browne Mark A, Niven Stewart J, Galloway Tamara S, Rowland Steve J, Thompson Richard C. Microplastic Moves Pollutants and Additives to Worms, Reducing Functions Linked to Health and Biodiversity. Current Biology. 2013;23(23):2388–92. 10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Reichel F-X. Taschenatlas der Toxikologie. 2 ed: Thieme; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jamal Q, Durani P, Khan K, Munir S, Hussain S, Anees M, et al. Heavy Metals Accumulation and Their Toxic Effects: Review. Journal of Bio-Molecular Sciences (JBMS). 2013;1:27–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wu X, Cobbina SJ, Mao G, Xu H, Zhang Z, Yang L. A review of toxicity and mechanisms of individual and mixtures of heavy metals in the environment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2016;23(9):8244–59. 10.1007/s11356-016-6333-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hahladakis JN, Velis CA, Weber R, Iacovidou E, Purnell P. An overview of chemical additives present in plastics: Migration, release, fate and environmental impact during their use, disposal and recycling. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2018;344:179–99. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.10.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Nakashima E, Isobe A, Kako Si, Itai T, Takahashi S. Quantification of Toxic Metals Derived from Macroplastic Litter on Ookushi Beach, Japan. Environmental Science & Technology. 2012;46(18):10099–105. 10.1021/es301362g [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Murphy J. CHAPTER 9—Modifying Specific Properties: Resistance to Light–UV Stabilizers In: Murphy J, editor. Additives for Plastics Handbook (Second Edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 2001. p. 107–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Murphy J. CHAPTER 10—Modifying Specific Properties: Flammability–Flame Retardants In: Murphy J, editor. Additives for Plastics Handbook (Second Edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 2001. p. 115–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Murphy J. CHAPTER 5—Modifying Specific Properties: Mechanical Properties–Reinforcements In: Murphy J, editor. Additives for Plastics Handbook (Second Edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 2001. p. 37–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Murphy J. CHAPTER 6—Modifying Specific Properties: Appearance–Colorants, Pigments, Dyes, Special Effects In: Murphy J, editor. Additives for Plastics Handbook (Second Edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 2001. p. 57–72. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Murphy J. CHAPTER 7—Modifying Specific Properties: Appearance–Black and White Pigmentation In: Murphy J, editor. Additives for Plastics Handbook (Second Edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 2001. p. 73–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Murphy J. CHAPTER 1—An Overview of Additives In: Murphy J, editor. Additives for Plastics Handbook (Second Edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 2001. p. 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Murphy J. CHAPTER 8—Modifying Specific Properties: Resistance to Heat–Heat Stabilizers In: Murphy J, editor. Additives for Plastics Handbook (Second Edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 2001. p. 93–106. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Westerhoff P, Prapaipong P, Shock E, Hillaireau A. Antimony leaching from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic used for bottled drinking water. Water Research. 2008;42(3):551–6. 10.1016/j.watres.2007.07.048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Brennecke D, Duarte B, Paiva F, Caçador I, Canning-Clode J. Microplastics as vector for heavy metal contamination from the marine environment. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2016;178:189–95. 10.1016/j.ecss.2015.12.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Rochman CM, Hentschel BT, Teh SJ. Long-Term Sorption of Metals Is Similar among Plastic Types: Implications for Plastic Debris in Aquatic Environments. PLOS ONE. 2014;9(1):e85433 10.1371/journal.pone.0085433 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. White Paper: A Summary of the Literature on the Chemical Toxicity of Plastics Pollution on Aquatic Life and Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ashton K, Holmes L, Turner A. Association of metals with plastic production pellets in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2010;60(11):2050–5. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.07.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Holmes LA, Turner A, Thompson RC. Adsorption of trace metals to plastic resin pellets in the marine environment. Environmental Pollution. 2012;160:42–8. 10.1016/j.envpol.2011.08.052 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Turner A, Holmes LA. Adsorption of trace metals by microplastic pellets in fresh water. Environmental Chemistry. 2015;12(5):600–10. . 10.1071/EN14143 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Vedolin MC, Teophilo CYS, Turra A, Figueira RCL. Spatial variability in the concentrations of metals in beached microplastics. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2017. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.10.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Wang J, Peng J, Tan Z, Gao Y, Zhan Z, Chen Q, et al. Microplastics in the surface sediments from the Beijiang River littoral zone: Composition, abundance, surface textures and interaction with heavy metals. Chemosphere. 2017;171:248–58. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.12.074 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Munier B, Bendell LI. Macro and micro plastics sorb and desorb metals and act as a point source of trace metals to coastal ecosystems. PLOS ONE. 2018;13(2):e0191759 10.1371/journal.pone.0191759 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Wijesekara H, Bolan NS, Bradney L, Obadamudalige N, Seshadri B, Kunhikrishnan A, et al. Trace element dynamics of biosolids-derived microbeads. Chemosphere. 2018;199:331–9. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.01.166 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Evaluation of measurement data—Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. BIPM, 2008.
  • 40.Wesch C, Elert AM, Wörner M, Braun U, Klein R, Paulus M. Assuring quality in microplastic monitoring: About the value of clean-air devices as essentials for verified data. Scientific Reports. 2017;7(1):5424 10.1038/s41598-017-05838-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Rodrigues J, Duarte A, Santos-Echeandía J, Rocha-Santos T. Significance of interactions between microplastics and POPs in the marine environment: A critical overview. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry. 2018;111 10.1016/j.trac.2018.11.038 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Müller A, Becker R, Dorgerloh U, Simon F-G, Braun U. The effect of polymer aging on the uptake of fuel aromatics and ethers by microplastics. Environmental Pollution. 2018;240:639–46. 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.04.127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hildebrandt L, Denise M, Zimmermann T, Proefrock D. A nanoplastic sampling and enrichment approach by continuous flow centrifugation. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 2020. 10.3389/fenvs.2020.00021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Tümay Özer E, Çimenoğlu M, Gucer S. Determination of Cadmium, Chromium, Lead and Mercury in Polyethylene and Polypropylene after xylene treatment by Energy Dispersive X-Ray Flourescence Spectromery. Instrumentation Science and Technology. 2011;39:357–67. 10.1080/10739149.2011.585194 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Tümay Özer E, Gucer S. Central composite design for the optimisation of Cd and Pb determination in PVC materials by atomic absorption spectrometry after Kjeldahl digestion. Polymer Testing. 2011;30:773–8. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2011.06.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Longas N, Garcia-Arrona R, Ostra M, Millan E. Application of Experimental Design in Acid Digestion Optimization for Cd, Cr, and Pb Determination in Plastic Materials by Atomic Absorption Spectrometry. Atomic Spectroscopy. 2009;30:47–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Sakurai H, Noro J, Kawase A, Fujinami M, Oguma K. Digestion of Plastic Materials for the Determination of Toxic Metals with a Microwave Oven for Household Use. Analytical Sciences. 2006;22(2):225–8. 10.2116/analsci.22.225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Cho HJ, Myung S-W. Determination of Cadmium, Chromium and Lead in Polymers by ICP-OES Using a High Pressure Asher (HPA). Bulletin of the Korean Chemical Society. 2011;32 10.5012/bkcs.2011.32.2.489 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Lehtimäki E, Väisänen A. Determination of metal concentrations in certified plastic reference materials after small-size autoclave and microwave-assisted digestion followed with inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry. Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy. 2017;127:64–9. 10.1016/j.sab.2016.11.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.PlasticsEurope. Plastics–the Facts 2019—An analysis of European plastics production, demand and waste data. 2019.
  • 51.Lorenz C, Roscher L, Meyer MS, Hildebrandt L, Prume J, Löder MGJ, et al. Spatial distribution of microplastics in sediments and surface waters of the southern North Sea. Environmental Pollution. 2019;252:1719–29. 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.06.093 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bannick CG, Szewzyk R, Ricking M, Schniegler S, Obermaier N, Barthel AK, et al. Development and testing of a fractionated filtration for sampling of microplastics in water. Water Research. 2019;149:650–8. 10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Mani T, Hauk A, Walter U, Burkhardt-Holm P. Microplastics profile along the Rhine River. Scientific Reports. 2015;5(1):17988 10.1038/srep17988 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Stenvall E, Tostar S, Boldizar A, Foreman MRS, Möller K. An analysis of the composition and metal contamination of plastics from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Waste Management. 2013;33(4):915–22. 10.1016/j.wasman.2012.12.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Ernst T, Popp R, Eldik R. Quantification of Heavy Metals for the Recycling of Waste Plastics from Electrotechnical Applications. Talanta. 2000;53:347–57. 10.1016/s0039-9140(00)00491-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Hidalgo-Ruz V, Gutow L, Thompson RC, Thiel M. Microplastics in the Marine Environment: A Review of the Methods Used for Identification and Quantification. Environmental Science & Technology. 2012;46(6):3060–75. 10.1021/es2031505 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Ivleva NP, Wiesheu AC, Niessner R. Microplastic in Aquatic Ecosystems. Angewandte Chemie International Edition. 2017;56(7):1720–39. 10.1002/anie.201606957 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Dixon WJ. Analysis of Extreme Values. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics. 1950;21(4):488–506. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.MacDougall D, Crummett WB, et al. Guidelines for data acquisition and data quality evaluation in environmental chemistry. Analytical Chemistry. 1980;52(14):2242–9. 10.1021/ac50064a004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Kragten J. Tutorial review. Calculating standard deviations and confidence intervals with a universally applicable spreadsheet technique. Analyst. 1994;119(10):2161–5. 10.1039/AN9941902161 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Irrgeher J, Prohaska T. Application of non-traditional stable isotopes in analytical ecogeochemistry assessed by MC ICP-MS—A critical review. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. 2016;408(2):369–85. 10.1007/s00216-015-9025-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Prohaska T. METROLOGY IN CHEMISTRY. Workshop (DAAS Dosctoral Students Seminar 2018). 2018.
  • 63.Magnusson B, Ellison SLR, Örnemark U. Eurachem Guide: Template for Eurachem Guides–A Guide for Editors. 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.ISO/DIS 13528. Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparison. 2002.
  • 65.ISO/IEC Guide 43–1:1997. Proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparisons—Part 1: Development and operation of proficiency testing schemes. 1997.
  • 66.García-Poyo MC, Grindlay G, Gras L, de Loos-Vollebregt MTC, Mora J. Non-spectral interferences due to the presence of sulfuric acid in inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy. 2015;105:71–6. 10.1016/j.sab.2014.11.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Mohammed E, Mohammed T, Mohammed A. Optimization of an acid digestion procedure for the determination of Hg, As, Sb, Pb and Cd in fish muscle tissue. MethodsX. 2017;4:513–23. 10.1016/j.mex.2017.11.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Van Delft W, Vos G. Comparison of digestion procedures for the determination of mercury in soils by cold-vapour atomic absorption spectrometry. Analytica Chimica Acta. 1988;209:147–56. 10.1016/S0003-2670(00)84557-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Feldmann J, Grümping R, Hirner AV. Determination of volatile metal and metalloid compounds in gases from domestic waste deposits with GC/ICP-MS. Fresenius' Journal of Analytical Chemistry. 1994;350(4):228–34. 10.1007/bf00322474 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Dulski T. Trace Elemental Analysis of Metals: Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Szefer P, Nriagu JO. Mineral Components in Foods: CRC Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Amaral CDB, Fialho LL, Camargo FPR, Pirola C, Nóbrega JA. Investigation of analyte losses using microwave-assisted sample digestion and closed vessels with venting. Talanta. 2016;160:354–9. 10.1016/j.talanta.2016.07.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Ostermann M. Bericht zur Zertifizierung der Massenanteile von Chrom, Brom, Cadmium und Blei in Acrylnitril-Butadien-Styrol Copolymerisat (ABS). 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Romero RS, Linsinger TPJ. CERTIFICATION REPORT—The Certification of the Mass Fractions of As, Br, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, S, Sb, Sn and Zn in Low-Density Polyethylene: ERM®-EC681m. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM), Geel, Belgium: 2016. 10.2787/757841 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Romero RS, Linsinger TPJ. CERTIFICATION REPORT—The Certification of the Mass Fractions of As, Br, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, S, Sb, Sn and Zn in Low-Density Polyethylene: ERM®-EC680m. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Vaughan A, Davis DS, Hagadorn JR, Salwani MS. Industrial Catalysts for Alkene Polymerization. Reference Module in Materials Science and Materials Engineering: Elsevier; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Resconi L, Chadwick JC, Cavallo L. 4.09—Olefin Polymerizations with Group IV Metal Catalysts In: Mingos DMP, Crabtree RH, editors. Comprehensive Organometallic Chemistry III. Oxford: Elsevier; 2007. p. 1005–166. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Kiat-amnuay S, Mekayarajjananonth T, Powers JM, Chambers MS, Lemon JC. Interactions of pigments and opacifiers on color stability of MDX4-4210/type A maxillofacial elastomers subjected to artificial aging. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2006;95(3):249–57. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.12.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Nguyen VG, Thai H, Mai DH, Tran HT, Tran DL, Vu MT. Effect of titanium dioxide on the properties of polyethylene/TiO2 nanocomposites. Composites Part B: Engineering. 2013;45(1):1192–8. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.09.058. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Zan L, Fa W, Wang S. Novel Photodegradable Low-Density Polyethylene−TiO2 Nanocomposite Film. Environmental Science & Technology. 2006;40(5):1681–5. 10.1021/es051173x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Wang S-J, Zha J-W, Li W-K, Wang Y, Wen Y-Q, Chen G, et al. Influence of hierarchy structure on electrical properties of gradient-distribution aluminum oxide/polyethylene nanocomposites. Composites Science and Technology. 2016;135:100–5. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2016.09.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Noorunnisa Khanam P, Al-Maadeed MA, Mrlik M. Improved flexible, controlled dielectric constant material from recycled LDPE polymer composites. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics. 2016;27(8):8848–55. 10.1007/s10854-016-4910-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Chan C-M, Wu J, Li J-X, Cheung Y-K. Polypropylene/calcium carbonate nanocomposites. Polymer. 2002;43(10):2981–92. 10.1016/S0032-3861(02)00120-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Kitano T, Kataoka T, Shirota T. An empirical equation of the relative viscosity of polymer melts filled with various inorganic fillers. Rheologica Acta. 1981;20(2):207–9. 10.1007/BF01513064 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Das Kusal K, Reddy RC, Bagoji Ishwar B, Das S, Bagali S, Mullur L, et al. Primary concept of nickel toxicity–an overview. Journal of Basic and Clinical Physiology and Pharmacology 2019. p. 141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Ritter A, Michel E, Schmid M, Affolter S. Interlaboratory test on polymers: determination of heavy metals in polymer metrices. Polymer Testing. 2004;23(4):467–74. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2003.09.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Martin Koller

22 May 2020

PONE-D-20-09074

Microwave-assisted acid digestion protocol for accurate trace metal analysis in different types of microplastic

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr. Hildebrandt,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

three independent referees commented on your submission. All of them find the submission of scientific value, and made concrete and detailed suggestions for improving the manuscript.

I am looking forward to receive your revised version.

All the very best greetings,

Martin Koller

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jul 06 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Martin Koller, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article present a research work on the development of a standard protocol for the analysis of metals which are sorbed at microplastic particles. The general aim of this work, the establishment of standardised procedures and the use of reference materials is highly welcome and deserves high attention, especially in the area of microplastic research.

However in my eyes at several point the real impact of such a work will not really reach the audience. Therefor the authors must make a greater effort to communicate the metrological-analytical value of such work to a community that often does not take such aspects into account when answering their own questions.

I will this comment at specific point

L1: The title does not really meet the aspect of the work, because its just summarise the technical part, which was done. Please think about a title more related to the outcome of the work, like: “Provision of a harmonized/standard/metrologically traceable protocol for the analysis of sorbed metal ions on microplastic particles”

L60/61: The sentence “Two aspects are important for the interactions between metals and MP” is misleading, because the two described aspects are not “imported”, they are the aspects in the debate. Better would be something like “Two scenarios are currently being considered in this context”.

L 79-86: The use of CRM must be highlighted stronger. Please make clearer, that the existing studies gave very different results and no harmonised procedures were used. Make clear, that for meaningful assessment of the data harmonised protocols are needed, including reference materials or inter-laboratory comparison test. Make clear, what an uncertainty in measurements means. For somebody from metrology this sounds simple, but the MP community often do not know those aspects. At this point of the paper the authors “have to pick up the customers of their work”.

L101-103: Please give also a reason for using those “exemplary chosen materials” with relation to microplastic findings.

L105-110: This explanation is right but must not explained here, please delete it, this information is not relevant for the article. ABS is used here as a representative of styrene copolymers.

L111-114: The sentence does not hit the core of the work “Therefore, the aim of this study is to contribute to a better understanding of the interactions between MP and metal contaminants by providing a thoroughly validated polymer-specific MWAD protocol for metal analysis in MP.”

The core is “Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide a thoroughly validated polymer-specific MWAD protocol for metal analysis in MP for a better understanding of the interactions between MP and metal contaminants”.

Figure 1: Please add also polymer specific parameters in the figure, like glass transition temperature, or crystallisation content which are of the most relevant parameters for sorption studies (See A. Müller, R. Becker, U. Dorgerloh, F.-G. Simon, U. Braun, Environmental Pollution 2018, 240, 639-646.). Even when this is not relevant for the present work, it would be helpful to add is aspect in the discussion.

Figure 2: The meaning of the figure does not reach me. What is the need for this kind of figure in this work?

L 243-244: The sentence “The results stress the demand for methods capable of also mineralizing MP particles consisting of obstinate thermosettings in order to accurately quantify all relevant contained metals.” address new aspect, which could confuse the reader. Please made the sentence more general or explain, what is the difference in chemical structure (and therefore mineralisation process) of thermosets, thermoplastics and elastomers.

Figure 4: The meaning of the figure does not reach me, what is delta beta, delta V, delta M and delta C? The figure seems established for metrology, but not for the audience of MP community. Please explain the parameters and the achieved information of them more detailed.

L 359/360 “Demonstration and discussion of the complexity of metal analysis in the material class of synthetic polymers as a highly heterogeneous pool of matrices”. A discussion about synthetic polymers as a highly heterogeneous pool of matrices was not really done, because the polymer chemistry and properties were not discussed. It was just a demonstration.

L 374-376: “Finally, only by a combination of bulk methods and specific surface-analysis techniques such as LA-ICP-MS or μ-XRF, the question “How much of the associated metal is bound to the surface and how much is contained in the polymer matrix of MP particles?” can be tackled. Answering this questions enables assessment of the availability of associated metal contaminants for organisms ingesting MP.”

The article presence a harmonised protocol for metal analysis. The article does not address analysis of different sorption processes, like adsorption or absorption. Actually, regarding the size of some of the metals ions and the existing free volume in a polymer an absorption is less likely. For a meaningful comment on this, please implements also aspects of permeation, diffusion coefficient, solubility etc. Otherwise, a question is raised here which has already been completely misunderstood in the MP community and does not draw on existing polymer knowledge enough. The results of using bulk or surface sensitive methods are negligible if polymers above or below the Tg are studied, various crystallization grades are not considered or the chemical structure of the polymer…

Therefore, please also change the abstract: The high-surface-to-volume-ratio must not be the relevant parameter for sorption process!

Finally comment

Could you please give a “recommendation” for the user of the protocol, which auf the materials are most promising to use them as a reference materials for own investigations?

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is an important contribution to improving analytics with respect to microplastics. Which is appreciated, because quite some work done in microplastics suffers from poor analytical methods …. It is easy to read and well written. I hence only have some minor comments which will, I hope, increase its readability further.

Abstract: “… using six different certified reference materials in the MP size range, i.e. ERM®-EC680m, ERM®-EC681m, NMIJ CRM 8123-a, NMIJ CRM 8133-a, BAM-H010 and Lead in Plastic - QC.” Very few readers will understand these ‘code names’ of the reference materials and their listing will hence tend to discourage a non-nerd within the field from reading the article. It is fully sufficient for an abstract to write e.g. “… using six different certified reference materials in the MP size range consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene and polyvinyl chloride”. The same change goes for the rest of the abstract, avoid these ‘code names. (also note that the plastics are not trade names and should not capitalized)

Line 85-86: “calculation of uncertainty budgets according to the “Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement” (GUM (JCGM 100:2008)).” Please give a proper reference to this guideline. The text in the brackets is not a proper reference. This phrase also pops up later in the text. Also here it needs a reference.

Line 118-119: “All experiments based on the MARS 6 and the Discover SP-D 35 (CEM Corp., Kamp Lintfort, Germany) microwaves …”. What are MARS 6 microwaves? What is Discover SP-D 35 microwaves? Are these some special sort of microwave radiation? (I know they are digestion systems, but a reader cannot see that from the text). Something is wrong in this sentence, a reader not familiar with these machines? / techniques? will not understand this sentence.

Line 130: what is meant by “(Lead in plastic - QC)”? This phrase is used later in the text also, but I have not been able to figure out what is meant hereby.

Various places in the manuscript: Note that the word “lead” (or other metals or substances) should not be capitalized hence lead, not Lead.

Various places in the manuscript: Note that the word “plastic” should not be capitalized hence plastic, not Plastic.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript submitted by Hildebrandt and co-workers describes the development of a microwave-heated acid digestion protocol for the trace metal analysis in microplastics. In order to gain a better understanding of metal contaminants in microplastics and their accurate analysis, six different certified reference materials (comprising the most important polymeric matrices such as PE, PP and PVC) were analyzed for their metal content by ICP-MS/MS. In addition, non-certified elements in the CRMs were quantified. In times where the discussion about body uptake of microplastics and thus the within contained (toxic) substances is heavily ongoing, this study puts an additional focus to this field.

The manuscript is well written and constructed, and analyses (as far as I can rate) well performed. However, what I miss, since the authors claim a thorough microwave-heated acid digestion protocol, is exactly this protocol. In their Experimental they report different temperatures and times that have been used for the MW protocol using 2 different MW instruments (MARS 6 and Discover SP-D 35). Also different digestion chemicals are listed. In the Results and Discussion section, only data for the MARS 6 MW is discussed, whereas additional data is provided in Table 3 for both instruments. But the authors do not explain why different acid mixtures have been used, and if the temperatures and times for both instruments were the same. Also the method of temperature measurement is not given (internal or external). I would like to know why 2 different instruments with different digesting mixtures have been used, what are the limitations of those instruments with respect to the turboWAVE and what would be the best digestion protocol for the CRMs. Can a general protocol be applied, or does the protocol need to be adapted depending on the CRM and type of MW instrument, respectively? A bit more detailled information on such a protocol would be desirable, also with respect to reproducibility.

Minor comments:

1) Which cleaning procedure was applied for the MW vials?

2) page 8, line 169: specify TFM

3) page 8, line 170: I would suggest a rewording of "CRMs were submerged with ..." to "The respective amount of ... was added to the MW vessels containg the CRMs"

4) page 11, line 240: it should be 4-nitrobenzoic acid

5) page 15, line 276: ...be explained by the presence of the metal species... I would rather say: ...be explained by the nature of the metal species...

6) page 19, line 327: I would recommend an ascending labelling of the SI Tables according to the text. Tables A5+A6 appear last in the text but not in the SI

7) page 19, Figure 4: make the pie chart clearer for Pb in BAM-H010, one does not clearly see to which legend the 0.04% and 0.6% belong

8) Figure A1 in the SI: I do not see the acidic proton at 13.30 ppm in the 1H NMR spectrum!!! I also don´t think that according only to that NMR, the structure of 4-nitrobenzoic acid can be confirmed.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Jes Vollertsen

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jul 20;15(7):e0236120. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236120.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


18 Jun 2020

Reviewer #1:

Comment/Question: The article present a research work on the development of a standard protocol for the analysis of metals which are sorbed at microplastic particles. The general aim of this work, the establishment of standardised procedures and the use of reference materials is highly welcome and deserves high attention, especially in the area of microplastic research.

However in my eyes at several point the real impact of such a work will not really reach the audience. Therefor the authors must make a greater effort to communicate the metrological-analytical value of such work to a community that often does not take such aspects into account when answering their own questions.

Answer: Thank you very much for the valuable and helpful input! We tried to address all of it to transport main messages in a better way (the use of CRMs by the MP community is necessary to improve the data, metrology concepts established in analytical chemistry have to be taken into account by the MP community). The modifications and additions are visible in the track changes version of the revised manuscript.

Comment/Question: I will this comment at specific point

L1: The title does not really meet the aspect of the work, because its just summarise the technical part, which was done. Please think about a title more related to the outcome of the work, like: “Provision of a harmonized/standard/metrologically traceable protocol for the analysis of sorbed metal ions on microplastic particles”

Answer: L1-4: “A metrologically traceable protocol for the quantification of trace metals in different types of microplastic” (we do not want to mention sorption/sorbed… in the title, since the protocol can be applied (also by other fields). It is suitable whenever someone wants to analyze the metal content of plastic (materials science, recycling sector etc.)

Comment/Question: L60/61: The sentence “Two aspects are important for the interactions between metals and MP” is misleading, because the two described aspects are not “imported”, they are the aspects in the debate. Better would be something like “Two scenarios are currently being considered in this context”.

Answer: L68 - L 69: The mentioned section has been changed to “Two scenarios are currently being considered in this context”.

Comment/Question: L 79-86: The use of CRM must be highlighted stronger. Please make clearer, that the existing studies gave very different results and no harmonised procedures were used. Make clear, that for meaningful assessment of the data harmonised protocols are needed, including reference materials or inter-laboratory comparison test. Make clear, what an uncertainty in measurements means. For somebody from metrology this sounds simple, but the MP community often do not know those aspects. At this point of the paper the authors “have to pick up the customers of their work”.

Answer: L 91 – 111: The following section has been modified: “Application of such non- or poorly (according to international metrology standards) validated procedures leads to generation of inaccurate, non-traceable and incomparable data. Therefore, in analytical chemistry, using matrix-matched CRMs is indispensable for the generation of comparable and metrologically traceable data as well as the calculation of uncertainty budgets according to the “Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement” (GUM (JCGM 100:2008)) [39]. The formal definition of “uncertainty of measurement” would be: “parameter, associated with the result of a measurement, that characterizes the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand” [39] (measurand in this context may be replaced with concentration for most areas of chemical analysis).

Expanded uncertainties take into account all major potential error contributions (e.g. measurement precision, reproducibility, inhomogeneity of the sample, blank contribution) (Figure 2) and a coverage factor (in the case of assumed normal distribution using ± two combined uncertainties refers to a 95.4% confidence interval). Therefore, uncertainties will not only give a measure of the quality of a result enabling the user to assess the reliability of analytical data, they also facilitate identification of the significant sources of uncertainty in a measurement procedure. Only if there is no overlap of the referring confidence intervals of two means, effects are significant based on a predefined significance level (α). For meaningful assessment of the data on the interactions between metals and MP but also for data on the general abundance of MP particles and fibers [40], thorough method validation and harmonized protocols are needed, including reference materials, inter-laboratory comparison tests and sound applications of existing metrological-analytical concepts.”

Comment/Question: L101-103: Please give also a reason for using those “exemplary chosen materials” with relation to microplastic findings.

Answer: The following section has been modified L135 – 136: … and a high share of the MP particles typically detected in aquatic environments [51-53]

Comment/Question: L105-110: This explanation is right but must not explained here, please delete it, this information is not relevant for the article. ABS is used here as a representative of styrene copolymers.

Answer: The following section has been modified L 137 - 138 “…acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)…as a representative of styrene copolymers…”; L140 - 146: deleted

Comment/Question: L111-114: The sentence does not hit the core of the work “Therefore, the aim of this study is to contribute to a better understanding of the interactions between MP and metal contaminants by providing a thoroughly validated polymer-specific MWAD protocol for metal analysis in MP.”

The core is “Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide a thoroughly validated polymer-specific MWAD protocol for metal analysis in MP for a better understanding of the interactions between MP and metal contaminants”.

Answer: The following section has been modified L146 – 149: “The aim of this study is to provide a thoroughly validated polymer-specific MWAD protocol for metal analysis in MP for a better understanding of the interactions between MP sampled in different environments and metal contaminants.”; the rest was deleted.

Comment/Question: Figure 1: Please add also polymer specific parameters in the figure, like glass transition temperature, or crystallisation content which are of the most relevant parameters for sorption studies (See A. Müller, R. Becker, U. Dorgerloh, F.-G. Simon, U. Braun, Environmental Pollution 2018, 240, 639-646.). Even when this is not relevant for the present work, it would be helpful to add is aspect in the discussion.

Answer: We really appreciate this point. We tried to only discuss parameters that can really have a negative influence on the recovery in “complete acid digestion processes”. In this scenario, only obstinate metal species can pose a problem. However, our paper tackles your important aspect now in the introduction part on “weak acidic extraction/leaching protocols” because for these protocols the strength of sorption is of high importance:

Also see Abstract: L 51 – 52: “Addressing specific analysis tools for different sorption scenarios and processes as well as the underlying kinetics was beyond this study’s scope.”

In addition the following section has been modified L 113 – 122: “Additionally, the degree of desorption (achieved by leaching) can vary between different polymer types (depending on the chemical structure of the polymeric chain). Maybe even more importantly, a meaningful assessment of the sorption and desorption behavior cannot be conducted without considering a variety of physical parameters, e.g. permeability, diffusion coefficients, solubility and polarity [41]. Müller et al. (2018) have demonstrated that sorption (and herewith also desorption) of chemicals to MP is highly influenced by polymer-specific parameters such as glass transition temperature and crystallization content [42].

To overcome resulting selectivity differences, it is advisable to put future studies focusing on the role of MP as a vector for metal contaminants either on the basis of a complete microwave-assisted acid digestion (MWAD) protocol …”

Comment/Question: Figure 2: The meaning of the figure does not reach me. What is the need for this kind of figure in this work?

Answer: This Figure should explain in a visual way, how combined uncertainties and the resulting expanded uncertainties (as a central aspect of the publication to be discussed) are generated based on the entire analytical process:

The following section has been modified L260 – L261: “All error contributing to the overall uncertainty must be considered.”

The following section has been modified L 100 – 102: “Expanded uncertainties take into account all major potential error contributions (e.g. measurement precision, reproducibility, inhomogeneity of the sample, blank contribution) (Figure 2) and a coverage factor…”

Comment/Question: L 243-244: The sentence “The results stress the demand for methods capable of also mineralizing MP particles consisting of obstinate thermosettings in order to accurately quantify all relevant contained metals.” address new aspect, which could confuse the reader. Please made the sentence more general or explain, what is the difference in chemical structure (and therefore mineralisation process) of thermosets, thermoplastics and elastomers.

Answer: The following section has been modified L 313 – 317: “The results stress the demand for methods capable of also mineralizing MP particles consisting of obstinate thermosettings in order to accurately quantify all relevant contained metals. In contrast to thermoplastics (meltable) and elastomers (viscoelasticity), thermosettings show a considerable resistance to thermal and chemical degradation due to the high degree of cross-linking between the polymer chains.”

Comment/Question: Figure 4: The meaning of the figure does not reach me, what is delta beta, delta V, delta M and delta C? The figure seems established for metrology, but not for the audience of MP community. Please explain the parameters and the achieved information of them more detailed.

Answer: L 401 – 405: “Figure 4 shows the relative contribution of the type A errors (result of own measurements/observations) stemming from measurement replicates of the instrument and digest replicates as well as of type B errors (result of external sources) such as the certified errors of the scale and the vessels used for digest dilution to the combined uncertainty. Based on the calculation of uncertainties, the identification of the significant sources of uncertainty in the measurement procedure is possible. Furthermore, it shows which parts of the procedure should be handled with care. Improving these parts of the procedure will significantly reduce the overall uncertainty.”

The following section has been modified L 411 – 414: “Figure 4: Relative contribution of the errors of the different input parameters to the overall uncertainty: Δβ: standard deviation of ICP MS/MS measurement replicates; ΔV: error of the dilution of the digests; Δm: error of the scale; ΔC: standard deviation of the concentrations measured in the digest replicates.”

Comment/Question: L 359/360 “Demonstration and discussion of the complexity of metal analysis in the material class of synthetic polymers as a highly heterogeneous pool of matrices”. A discussion about synthetic polymers as a highly heterogeneous pool of matrices was not really done, because the polymer chemistry and properties were not discussed. It was just a demonstration.

Answer: Thank you, you are definitely right! We wanted to keep a clear focus on the methodological difficulties of metal analysis in plastic. We will tackle the sorption and desorption processes/important aspects in a future study specifically dealing with sorption and desorption (based on our digestion protocol) experiments since it is of enormous complexity.

The following section has been modified L 442/443: “III. Experimental demonstration of the complexity of metal analysis in the material class of synthetic polymers as a highly heterogeneous pool of matrices”

Comment/Question: L 374-376: “Finally, only by a combination of bulk methods and specific surface-analysis techniques such as LA-ICP-MS or μ-XRF, the question “How much of the associated metal is bound to the surface and how much is contained in the polymer matrix of MP particles?” can be tackled. Answering this questions enables assessment of the availability of associated metal contaminants for organisms ingesting MP.”

The article presence a harmonised protocol for metal analysis. The article does not address analysis of different sorption processes, like adsorption or absorption. Actually, regarding the size of some of the metals ions and the existing free volume in a polymer an absorption is less likely. For a meaningful comment on this, please implements also aspects of permeation, diffusion coefficient, solubility etc. Otherwise, a question is raised here which has already been completely misunderstood in the MP community and does not draw on existing polymer knowledge enough. The results of using bulk or surface sensitive methods are negligible if polymers above or below the Tg are studied, various crystallization grades are not considered or the chemical structure of the polymer…

Therefore, please also change the abstract: The high-surface-to-volume-ratio must not be the relevant parameter for sorption process!

Answer: Thank you again for this very important hint! Our main message is, that it is mandatory to use polymer CRMs for all future studies investigating the “interactions” between MP and metals in whatever way. You are totally right, that we are not presenting a sorption study here. In order to keep our message maximally clear, we do not want to discuss the relevant parameters for sorption (ad- and absorption) and desorption (in the discussion section). This should be done either in a review or a future paper on sorption and desorption (in which we have gained first experimental insights yet, on which we have to expand on in the future).

The following section has been modified L29: “…high surface to volume ratio…” � deleted

The following section has been modified L 51 – 56: “… Addressing specific analysis tools for different sorption scenarios and processes as well as the underlying kinetics was beyond this study’s scope. However, the future application of the two recommended thoroughly validated total acid digestion protocols as a first step in the direction of harmonization of metal analysis in/on MP will enhance the significance and comparability of the generated data. It will contribute to a better understanding of the role of MP as vector for trace metals in the environment.”

The following section has been modified L 464 – 468: deleted

The following section has been modified: L 113 – 122: “Additionally, the degree of desorption (achieved by leaching) can vary between different polymer types (depending on the chemical structure of the polymeric chain). Maybe even more importantly, a meaningful assessment of the sorption and desorption behavior cannot be conducted without considering a variety of physical parameters, e.g. permeability, diffusion coefficients, solubility and polarity [41]. Müller et al. (2018) have demonstrated that sorption (and herewith also desorption) of chemicals to MP is highly influenced by polymer-specific parameters such as glass transition temperature and crystallization content [42]. To overcome resulting selectivity differences, it is advisable to put future studies focusing on the role of MP as a vector for metal contaminants either on the basis of a complete microwave-assisted acid digestion (MWAD) protocol or…”

Comment/Question: Finally comment

Could you please give a “recommendation” for the user of the protocol, which auf the materials are most promising to use them as a reference materials for own investigations?

Answer: Thank you! This point was addressed by the other Reviewers as well. The readers that want to apply and reproduce the applied protocol should see it more easily. Therefore, a table was added.

� Table 5

The following section has been modified L 450 – 452: “…Therefore, for studies focusing on electrotechnical waste and other very obstinate plastic matrices, we recommend the use of the 2nd proposed protocol (Table 5).”

The following section has been modified L 469 – 472: “For future studies investigating the interactions (sorption and desorption processes and the inherent metal content) between the most common environmental particulate plastic types and metal contaminants, we recommend the use of the 1st proposed MWAD protocol (Table 5) for total acid digestion.”

Reviewer #2:

Comment/Question: The manuscript is an important contribution to improving analytics with respect to microplastics. Which is appreciated, because quite some work done in microplastics suffers from poor analytical methods …. It is easy to read and well written. I hence only have some minor comments which will, I hope, increase its readability further.

Answer: Thank you very much for the important and constructive input which hopefully helps us to reach a broader audience within the microplastic community! The modifications and additions are visible in the track changes version of the revised manuscript.

Comment/Question: Abstract: “… using six different certified reference materials in the MP size range, i.e. ERM®-EC680m, ERM®-EC681m, NMIJ CRM 8123-a, NMIJ CRM 8133-a, BAM-H010 and Lead in Plastic - QC.” Very few readers will understand these ‘code names’ of the reference materials and their listing will hence tend to discourage a non-nerd within the field from reading the article. It is fully sufficient for an abstract to write e.g. “… using six different certified reference materials in the MP size range consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene and polyvinyl chloride”. The same change goes for the rest of the abstract, avoid these ‘code names. (also note that the plastics are not trade names and should not capitalized)

Answer: The abstract has been adapted. Trade names were replaced by polymer types (L 38 - 39, L 45, L 49)

The following section has been modified L 35 – 37: “…using six different certified reference materials in the microplastic size range consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene and polyvinyl chloride.”

Comment/Question: Line 85-86: “calculation of uncertainty budgets according to the “Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement” (GUM (JCGM 100:2008)).” Please give a proper reference to this guideline. The text in the brackets is not a proper reference. This phrase also pops up later in the text. Also here it needs a reference.

Answer: The reference was added: L96, 98, 265, 425 - 426, 611 - 612

Comment/Question: Line 118-119: “All experiments based on the MARS 6 and the Discover SP-D 35 (CEM Corp., Kamp Lintfort, Germany) microwaves …”. What are MARS 6 microwaves? What is Discover SP-D 35 microwaves? Are these some special sort of microwave radiation? (I know they are digestion systems, but a reader cannot see that from the text). Something is wrong in this sentence, a reader not familiar with these machines? / techniques? will not understand this sentence.

Answer: L 159 – 174: “The three microwave systems compared in this study differ in the general construction, but the main practical differences refer to the number of vessels that can be processed at a time, the vessel sizes (section 2.2) and the pressure as well as temperature regulation. Briefly summarized, the MARS 6 and the Discover SP-D 35 (external IR temperature control; pressure vessels) used in this study enable digestion at temperatures up to 230 °C and observed pressures up to 24 - 28 bar, whereas the turboWAVE bears a significantly higher maximum temperature of 300 °C and also a significantly higher maximum pressure of 200 bar. In the tuboWAVE, Temperature and pressure are both regulated and controlled in a single reaction chamber filled with inert gas. In contrast to the MARS 6 and the turboWAVE microwave, that feature simultaneous processing of a batch of digestions (40 and 15 vessels), the Discover SP D 35 (in conjunction with an Explorer autosampler) irradiates the vessels automatically one after another enabling variation of digestion parameters for method development (different conditions for every vessel possible). Please note that this comparison is not meant to be exhaustive, since there are a lot of different vessel types (e.g. for different maximum pressures and temperatures), add-ons features (e.g. for pressure and temperature control) and also other microwave systems available on the market.”

Comment/Question: Line 130: what is meant by “(Lead in plastic - QC)”? This phrase is used later in the text also, but I have not been able to figure out what is meant hereby.

Answer: This is just the trade name, like ERM-EC680m:

https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sial/sqc1093?lang=de&region=DE

L183 – 184 …and another PP CRM (Lead in plastic – QC (trade name)) from Sigma Aldrich (Wyoming, USA)…

L 362: …’“Lead in Plastic – QC” (trade name of the CRM) (Table 3).’

Comment/Question: Various places in the manuscript: Note that the word “lead” (or other metals or substances) should not be capitalized hence lead, not Lead.

Answer: See previous point, in this case it is part of the trade name.

Comment/Question: Various places in the manuscript: Note that the word “plastic” should not be capitalized hence plastic, not Plastic.

Answer: Plastic is only capitalized when it is part of “Lead in Plastic – QC”

Reviewer #3:

Comment/Question: The manuscript submitted by Hildebrandt and co-workers describes the development of a microwave-heated acid digestion protocol for the trace metal analysis in microplastics. In order to gain a better understanding of metal contaminants in microplastics and their accurate analysis, six different certified reference materials (comprising the most important polymeric matrices such as PE, PP and PVC) were analyzed for their metal content by ICP-MS/MS. In addition, non-certified elements in the CRMs were quantified. In times where the discussion about body uptake of microplastics and thus the within contained (toxic) substances is heavily ongoing, this study puts an additional focus to this field.

Answer: Thank you very much. We really appreciate the valuable and constructive input and we have tried to address all of it thoroughly! The modifications and additions are visible in the track changes version of the revised manuscript.

Comment/Question: The manuscript is well written and constructed, and analyses (as far as I can rate) well performed. However, what I miss, since the authors claim a thorough microwave-heated acid digestion protocol, is exactly this protocol. In their Experimental they report different temperatures and times that have been used for the MW protocol using 2 different MW instruments (MARS 6 and Discover SP-D 35). Also different digestion chemicals are listed. In the Results and Discussion section, only data for the MARS 6 MW is discussed, whereas additional data is provided in Table 3 for both instruments. But the authors do not explain why different acid mixtures have been used, and if the temperatures and times for both instruments were the same.

Answer: We added a section on the choice of the preferred acid mixture and an explanation why the MARS 6 is considered more suitable than the Discover SP-D 35 (in addition to the reflection by zeta scores in table 3)

The following section has been modified L 285 – 295: “The use of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) was omitted in order to avoid non-spectral interferences [72] and reduced recoveries for Pb, due to the formation of insoluble sulfates [47]. In General, the addition of H2O2 and HBF4 to the mixture of HNO3 and HCl did not lead to better recoveries (Figure 3) but - in case of H2O2 - an increase of pressure in the microwave vessels and higher losses of acid mixture during the digestion were observed. Moreover, an automatic release of the vessel pressure above approximately 24 bar was observed for the Discover SP-D 35 (CEM Corp.). The described uncontrolled losses of acid can impede the accuracy of the process when volatile metals (e.g. Hg) [73, 74] or metal chlorides (with As, Sb, Sn, etc.) are present [49, 75-78]. Therefore, the MARS 6 turned out to be better suitable for accurate metal analysis in plastic (Table 3) than the Discover SP-D 35 (both CEM Corp.). This conclusion is clearly reflected by the comparison of |zeta| scores between both microwave systems (Table 3).”

Comment/Question: Also the method of temperature measurement is not given (internal or external). I would like to know why 2 different instruments with different digesting mixtures have been used, what are the limitations of those instruments with respect to the turboWAVE and what would be the best digestion protocol for the CRMs.

Answer: The major differences (which directly indicate their advantages and disadvantages) between the microwave systems are now described in more detail in the M&M part:

The following section has been modified: L 159 – 174: “The three microwave systems compared in this study differ in the general construction, but the main practical differences refer to the number of vessels that can be processed at a time, the vessel sizes (section 2.2) and the pressure as well as temperature regulation. Briefly summarized, the MARS 6 and the Discover SP-D 35 (external IR temperature control; pressure vessels) used in this study enable digestion at temperatures up to 230 °C and observed pressures up to 24 - 28 bar, whereas the turboWAVE bears a significantly higher maximum temperature of 300 °C and also a significantly higher maximum pressure of 200 bar. In the tuboWAVE, Temperature and pressure are both regulated and controlled in a single reaction chamber filled with inert gas. In contrast to the MARS 6 and the turboWAVE microwave, that feature simultaneous processing of a batch of digestions (40 and 15 vessels), the Discover SP D 35 (in conjunction with an Explorer autosampler) irradiates the vessels automatically one after another enabling variation of digestion parameters for method development (different conditions for every vessel possible). Please note that this comparison is not meant to be exhaustive, since there are a lot of different vessel types (e.g. for different maximum pressures and temperatures), add-ons features (e.g. for pressure and temperature control) and also other microwave systems available on the market.”

Comment/Question: Can a general protocol be applied, or does the protocol need to be adapted depending on the CRM and type of MW instrument, respectively? A bit more detailled information on such a protocol would be desirable, also with respect to reproducibility.

Answer: Thank you very much! This aspect was also addressed by the other reviewers. We have now implemented two recommended protocols depending on how obstinate the polymer matrix is. The first protocol is sufficient for the majority of synthetic polymeric materials (L 450 – 452: “Therefore, for studies focusing on electrotechnical waste and other very obstinate plastic matrices, we recommend the use of the 2nd proposed protocol (Table 5).”)

The following section has been modified: L 469 – 472: “For future studies investigating the interactions (sorption and desorption processes and the inherent metal content) between the most common environmental particulate plastic types and metal contaminants, we recommend the use of the 1st proposed MWAD protocol (Table 5) for total acid digestion.”

� L 475– 477: Table 5

Minor comments:

Comment/Question: 1) Which cleaning procedure was applied for the MW vials?

Answer: L209 – 211: “…Microwave vessels were cleaned by running the respective MWAD program two times solely with 4 mL HNO3 and 1 mL HCl (without CRM). Subsequently, the vessels were washed 3-times with Milli-Q water.”

Comment/Question: 2) page 8, line 169: specify TFM

Answer: The following section has been modified: L 224 -225: “…55 mL MARSXpress TFM® (trade name; cross-linked [(CF2)4-CF(-O-CF2-CF2-CF3)-(CF2)5]n) bombs…”

Comment/Question: 3) page 8, line 170: I would suggest a rewording of "CRMs were submerged with ..." to "The respective amount of ... was added to the MW vessels containg the CRMs"

Answer: The following section has been modified L 226 – 227: “The respective amount of HNO3, HCl, H2O2 and HBF4 (section 2.1) was added to the microwave vessels containing the CRM.”

Comment/Question: 4) page 11, line 240: it should be 4-nitrobenzoic acid

Answer: Adapted

Comment/Question: 5) page 15, line 276: ...be explained by the presence of the metal species... I would rather say: ...be explained by the nature of the metal species...

Answer: Adapted

Comment/Question: 6) page 19, line 327: I would recommend an ascending labelling of the SI Tables according to the text. Tables A5+A6 appear last in the text but not in the SI

Answer: Thank you for the thorough reading! Adapted.

Comment/Question: 7) page 19, Figure 4: make the pie chart clearer for Pb in BAM-H010, one does not clearly see to which legend the 0.04% and 0.6% belong

Answer: Adapted

Comment/Question: 8) Figure A1 in the SI: I do not see the acidic proton at 13.30 ppm in the 1H NMR spectrum!!! I also don´t think that according only to that NMR, the structure of 4-nitrobenzoic acid can be confirmed.

Answer: The signal of the acidic proton is strongly broadened due to proton exchange which is fast on the NMR timescale (thus not integrable). The related section of the spectrum including the acidic proton was added and is now enlarged shown in the figure.

Also, the obtained NMR spectrum of the substance was compared to a spectrum of commercially available 4-nitrobenzoic acid (Merck) and found to be similar. The reference spectrum was added into the figure (blue spectrum, SI), too, to confirm the structure.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_final.docx

Decision Letter 1

Martin Koller

30 Jun 2020

A metrologically traceable protocol for the quantification of trace metals in different types of microplastic

PONE-D-20-09074R1

Dear Dr. Hildebrandt,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Martin Koller, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The comments of all three independent referees were addressed by the authors in a satisfying manner.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Martin Koller

6 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-09074R1

A metrologically traceable protocol for the quantification of trace metals in different types of microplastic

Dear Dr. Hildebrandt:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Martin Koller

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_final.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES