Previous studies have evaluated method performance for quantifying and characterizing microplastics in clean water, but little is known about the efficacy of procedures used to extract microplastics from complex matrices. Here we provided 15 laboratories with samples representing four matrices (i.e., drinking water, fish tissue, sediment, and surface water) each spiked with a known number of microplastic particles spanning a variety of polymers, morphologies, colors, and sizes. Percent recovery (i.e., accuracy) in complex matrices was particle size dependent, with ∼60-70% recovery for particles >212 μm, but as little as 2% recovery for particles <20 μm. Extraction from sediment was most problematic, with recoveries reduced by at least one-third relative to drinking water. Though accuracy was low, the extraction procedures had no observed effect on precision or chemical identification using spectroscopy. Extraction procedures greatly increased sample processing times for all matrices with the extraction of sediment, tissue, and surface water taking approximately 16, 9, and 4 times longer than drinking water, respectively. Overall, our findings indicate that increasing accuracy and reducing sample processing times present the greatest opportunities for method improvement rather than particle identification and characterization.

Microscopy is often the first step in microplastic analysis and is generally followed by spectroscopy to confirm material type. The value of microscopy lies in its ability to provide count, size, color, and morphological information to inform toxicity and source apportionment. To assess the accuracy and precision of microscopy, we conducted a method evaluation study. Twenty-two laboratories from six countries were provided three blind spiked clean water samples and asked to follow a standard operating procedure. The samples contained a known number of microplastics with different morphologies (fiber, fragment, sphere), colors (clear, white, green, blue, red, and orange), polymer types (PE, PS, PVC, and PET), and sizes (ranging from roughly 3-2000 μm), and natural materials (natural hair, fibers, and shells; 100-7000 μm) that could be mistaken for microplastics (i.e., false positives). Particle recovery was poor for the smallest size fraction (3-20 μm). Average recovery (±StDev) for all reported particles >50 μm was 94.5 ± 56.3%. After quality checks, recovery for >50 μm spiked particles was 51.3 ± 21.7%. Recovery varied based on morphology and color, with poorest recovery for fibers and the largest deviations for clear and white particles. Experience mattered; less experienced laboratories tended to report higher concentration and had a higher variance among replicates. Participants identified opportunity for increased accuracy and precision through training, improved color and morphology keys, and method alterations relevant to size fractionation. The resulting data informs future work, constraining and highlighting the value of microscopy for microplastics.