↓ Skip to main content

Heat and Bleach: A Cost-Efficient Method for Extracting Microplastics from Return Activated Sludge

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
232 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Heat and Bleach: A Cost-Efficient Method for Extracting Microplastics from Return Activated Sludge
Published in
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00244-017-0415-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Surya Sujathan, Ann-Kathrin Kniggendorf, Arun Kumar, Bernhard Roth, Karl-Heinz Rosenwinkel, Regina Nogueira

Abstract

The extraction of plastic microparticles, so-called microplastics, from sludge is a challenging task due to the complex, highly organic material often interspersed with other benign microparticles. The current procedures for microplastic extraction from sludge are time consuming and require expensive reagents for density separation as well as large volumes of oxidizing agents for organic removal, often resulting in tiny sample sizes and thus a disproportional risk of sample bias. In this work, we present an improved extraction method tested on return activated sludge (RAS). The treatment of 100 ml of RAS requires only 6% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) for bleaching at 70 °C, followed by density separation with sodium nitrate/sodium thiosulfate (SNT) solution, and is completed within 24 h. Extracted particles of all sizes were chemically analyzed with confocal Raman microscopy. An extraction efficiency of 78 ± 8% for plastic particle sizes 20 µm and up was confirmed in a recovery experiment. However, glass shards with a diameter of less than 20 µm remained in the sample despite the density of glass exceeding the density of the separating SNT solution by 1.1 g/cm(3). This indicates that density separation may be unreliable for particle sizes in the lower micrometer range.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 232 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 15%
Researcher 22 9%
Student > Bachelor 21 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 4%
Other 26 11%
Unknown 84 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 54 23%
Engineering 22 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 6%
Chemistry 11 5%
Chemical Engineering 9 4%
Other 25 11%
Unknown 97 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2022.
All research outputs
#6,816,751
of 24,727,020 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#567
of 2,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,891
of 318,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#14
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,727,020 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,209 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,255 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.