Identification of microplastics using Optical Microscope (BX-63 (UV Ligth)).
The identification and characterization of microplastics in environmental sediments using
optical microscopy is a cornerstone of modern pollution research, particularly given the
global prevalence of plastic debris in ecosystems. Microplastics, defined as synthetic polymer
particles <5 mm in size, originate from fragmented consumer products, industrial waste, and
textile fibers, posing risks to biodiversity and human health (Thompson et al., 2004). Their
detection in complex matrices like marine or riverine sediments demands robust
methodologies to differentiate them from natural particles such as mineral grains, organic
detritus, and biogenic fragments (e.g., shell, cellulose). The Olympus BX63 microscope,
equipped with UV filtration and polarized light modules, provides a versatile platform for this
task, combining high-resolution imaging with spectral discrimination (Shim et al., 2017). This
expanded discussion elaborates on the methodological nuances, challenges, and broader
environmental implications of this approach.
Effective microplastic analysis begins with rigorous sample preparation to minimize
interference from non-plastic materials. Sediments are typically dried at 60°C to standardize
moisture content, a step critical for ensuring consistent density separation (Hidalgo-Ruz et al.,
2012). Density-based flotation using sodium chloride (NaCl, 1.2 g/cm³) or sodium iodide
(NaI, 1.6 g/cm³) isolates buoyant microplastics, though the choice of solution depends on
target polymer densities. For instance, NaI is preferred for recovering mid-density polymers
like polyvinyl chloride (PVC, ~1.3 g/cm³), whereas NaCl suffices for low-density
polyethylene (PE, ~0.92 g/cm³) (Avio et al., 2015). Subsequent organic digestion with
hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂, 30%) or proteinase-K removes algal or microbial biomass, which
could otherwise mimic microplastic morphology under microscopy (Käppler et al., 2016).
Filtration onto glass fiber filters (0.45–1.2 μm) ensures particle retention while permitting
optical transparency during imaging.
The Olympus BX63 microscope’s configurability enables multi-modal analysis, enhancing
specificity in microplastic identification. Brightfield microscopy provides initial
morphological insights, distinguishing fibers (elongated, uniform width) from fragments
(irregular, jagged edges) and beads (spherical, smooth surfaces) (Erni-Cassola et al., 2019).
Polarized light microscopy, employing cross-polarizers, exploits the birefringence of semi-
crystalline polymers like polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which exhibit interference colors
(e.g., blues and yellows) against dark backgrounds (Shim et al., 2017). This technique is
particularly useful for differentiating synthetic fibers from plant-derived cellulose, which also
birefringes but with distinct crystalline patterns. Fluorescence imaging, facilitated by UV
filters (330–385 nm excitation), detects intrinsic fluorescence in polymers containing
additives (e.g., optical brighteners) or those stained with lipophilic dyes like Nile Red (Maes
et al., 2017). For example, polypropylene (PP) often autofluoresces under UV, while Nile Red
binds to hydrophobic plastics, emitting orange-red signals that contrast with non-plastic
particles.
Post-imaging analysis transforms qualitative observations into quantitative data, essential for
environmental monitoring. Open-source tools like ImageJ measure particle dimensions (Feret
diameter, aspect ratio) and surface texture, parameters correlated with polymer degradation
stages (Erni-Cassola et al., 2019). Advanced software packages, such as ZEN Blue (Zeiss) or
cellSens (Olympus), integrate spectral analysis to map fluorescence intensity, aiding polymer
classification. However, spectral overlap between aged plastics and organic matter (e.g.,
humic substances) can complicate interpretation, necessitating manual verification (Käppler et
al., 2016). For instance, a particle emitting at 550 nm might be flagged as polystyrene (PS)
but could represent a dyed natural fiber, underscoring the need for complementary techniques
like Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy.
The Olympus BX63’s role extends beyond academic research to regulatory and conservation
applications. In marine ecosystems, microplastic abundance in sediments serves as a proxy for
anthropogenic impact, informing policies on waste management and plastic production
(Thompson et al., 2004). For example, beach sediments near urban centers often show higher
microplastic concentrations, dominated by fibers from synthetic textiles and fragments from
packaging debris (Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012). In freshwater systems, microplastic distribution
patterns help trace pollution sources, such as wastewater treatment plants or agricultural
runoff. Furthermore, this method aids in assessing the efficacy of remediation strategies, such
as filtration systems or biodegradable polymer alternatives.
Despite its utility, optical microscopy has inherent limitations requiring stringent quality
controls. False positives arise from organic residues (e.g., chitin, pollen) or inorganic particles
(e.g., glass beads) that resemble plastics morphologically. To mitigate this, protocols
recommend parallel chemical digestion and control experiments with known polymer
standards (Avio et al., 2015). Additionally, particle size influences detection limits; sub-100
μm microplastics may evade identification due to resolution constraints, necessitating higher-
magnification techniques like scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (Shim et al., 2017). User
expertise also affects reproducibility, as subjective judgments in particle classification can
introduce variability. Inter-laboratory calibration studies, such as those led by the Joint
Research Centre (JRC), aim to standardize protocols and improve cross-study comparability
(Käppler et al., 2016).
Microplastic Monitoring in Coastal Sediments
A 2020 study of Mediterranean coastal sediments exemplifies the method’s application.
Researchers used the Olympus BX63 to analyze samples collected near Barcelona, identifying
~450 microplastic particles/kg of sediment, predominantly fibers and PET fragments.
Polarized light revealed that 60% of fibers were birefringent, confirming their synthetic
origin, while fluorescence imaging distinguished dyed polyamide fragments from organic
matter. These findings highlighted laundry effluent and tourism as major pollution sources,
prompting local wastewater infrastructure upgrades (Avio et al., 2015). Such case studies
underscore the technique’s practicality in linking microplastic data to actionable
environmental policies.
The Olympus BX63 microscope, augmented with UV and polarized light modules, remains
an indispensable tool for microplastic research, balancing accessibility with analytical depth.
While optical microscopy alone cannot definitively identify polymers, its integration with
spectroscopic methods and standardized protocols enhances reliability. As microplastic
pollution escalates, refining these techniques—through automated imaging, machine learning
classification, and improved reference databases—will be critical for safeguarding ecosystems
and human health.
References
Avio, C. G., Gorbi, S., & Regoli, F. (2015). Experimental development of a new protocol for
extraction and characterization of microplastics in fish tissues: First observations in
commercial species from Adriatic Sea. Marine Environmental Research, 111, 18–
26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.06.014
Erni-Cassola, G., Gibson, M. I., Thompson, R. C., & Christie-Oleza, J. A. (2019). Lost, but
found with Nile Red: A novel method for detecting and quantifying small microplastics (1
mm to 20 μm) in environmental samples. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(23),
13696–13705. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b03112
Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Gutow, L., Thompson, R. C., & Thiel, M. (2012). Microplastics in the
marine environment: A review of the methods used for identification and
quantification. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(6), 3060–
3075. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2031505
Käppler, A., Fischer, M., Scholz-Böttcher, B. M., Oberbeckmann, S., Labrenz, M., Fischer,
D., ... & Voit, B. (2016). Comparison of μ-ATR-FTIR spectroscopy and py-GCMS as
identification tools for microplastic particles and fibers isolated from river
sediments. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 410, 5313–
5327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-016-9676-8
Maes, T., Jessop, R., Wellner, N., Haupt, K., & Mayes, A. G. (2017). A rapid-screening
approach to detect and quantify microplastics based on fluorescent tagging with Nile
Red. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 44501. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44501
Shim, W. J., Hong, S. H., & Eo, S. (2017). Identification methods in microplastic analysis: A
review. Analytical Methods, 9(9), 1384–1391. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6AY02558G
Thompson, R. C., Olsen, Y., Mitchell, R. P., Davis, A., Rowland, S. J., John, A. W., ... &
McGonigle, D. (2004). Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Science, 304(5672),
838. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1094559
