To inform mitigation strategies and understand how microplastics affect wildlife, research is focused on understanding the sources, pathways, and occurrence of microplastics in the environment and in wildlife. Microplastics research entails counting and characterizing microplastics in nature, which is a labor‐intensive process, particularly given the range of particle sizes and morphologies present within this diverse class of contaminants. Thus, it is crucial to determine appropriate sampling methods that best capture the types and quantities of microplastics relevant to inform the questions and objectives at hand. It is also critical to follow protocols with strict quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) measures so that results reflect accurate estimates of microplastic contamination. Here, we assess different sampling procedures and QA/QC strategies to inform best practices for future environmental monitoring and assessments of exposure. We compare microplastic abundance and characteristics in surface‐water samples collected using different methods (i.e., manta and bulk water) at the same sites, as well as duplicate samples for each method taken at the same site and approximate time. Samples were collected from 9 sampling sites within San Francisco Bay, California, USA, using 3 different sampling methods: 1) manta trawl (manta), 2) 1‐L grab (grab), and 3) 10‐L bulk water filtered in situ (pump). Bulk water sampling methods (both grab and pump) captured more microplastics within the smaller size range (<335 µm), most of which were fibers. Manta samples captured a greater diversity of morphologies but underestimated smaller‐sized particles. Inspection of pump samples revealed high numbers of particles from procedural contamination, stressing the need for robust QA/QC, including sampling and analyzing laboratory blanks, field blanks, and duplicates. Choosing the appropriate sampling method, combined with rigorous, standardized QA/QC practices, is essential for the future of microplastics research in marine and freshwater ecosystems. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;17:282–291. © 2020 SETAC

中文翻译：

---

方法很重要：采样塑料和其他人为颗粒的方法及其对监测和生态风险评估的意义。

为了提供缓解策略并了解微塑料如何影响野生生物，研究的重点是了解环境和野生生物中微塑料的来源，途径和发生情况。进行微塑料研究需要对自然中的微塑料进行计数和表征，这是一项劳动密集型的过程，特别是考虑到在这类不同种类的污染物中存在的粒径和形态范围。因此，至关重要的是要确定适当的采样方法，以最好地捕获与微塑料的类型和数量有关的信息，以告知手头的问题和目标。遵循严格的质量保证和质量控制（QA / QC）措施的规程也至关重要，这样结果才能反映出对微塑料污染的准确估计。这里，我们评估了不同的抽样程序和质量保证/质量控制策略，为将来的环境监测和暴露评估提供了最佳实践依据。我们比较了在同一地点使用不同方法（例如，蝠ta和散装水）收集的地表水样品中微塑性的丰度和特征，以及在同一地点和近似时间每种方法的重复样品。使用3种不同的采样方法从美国加利福尼亚州旧金山湾的9个采样点采集样品：1）蝠ta（manta），2）1L抓斗（抓斗）和3）10L散水过滤原位（泵）。散装水采样方法（抓取和泵送）在较小的尺寸范围（<335 µm）内捕获了更多的微塑料，其中大多数是纤维。蝠ta样品捕获了更大的形态多样性，但低估了较小的颗粒。对泵样品的检查显示，程序污染中有大量的颗粒，从而强调了对可靠的质量保证/质量控制的需求，包括对实验室空白，现场空白和重复样本进行采样和分析。选择适当的采样方法，并结合严格的标准化QA / QC做法，对于海洋和淡水生态系统中的微塑料研究的未来至关重要。Integr环境评估管理2021; 17：282–291。©2020 SETAC