Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Lorenz, Claudia

  • Google
  • 3
  • 12
  • 610

Roskilde University

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (3/3 displayed)

  • 2023Does microplastic analysis method affect our understanding of microplastics in the environment?7citations
  • 2020Tying up Loose Ends of Microplastic Pollution in the Arctic241citations
  • 2018Comparison of Raman and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy for the Quantification of Microplastics in the Aquatic Environment362citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Vollertsen, Jes
1 / 7 shared
Liu, Yuanli
1 / 1 shared
Prikler, Bence
1 / 1 shared
Bordós, Gábor
1 / 1 shared
Hasemann, Christiane
1 / 1 shared
Bergmann, Melanie
1 / 1 shared
Wekerle, Claudia
1 / 1 shared
Tekman, Mine B.
1 / 1 shared
Gerdts, Gunnar
2 / 2 shared
Primpke, Sebastian
2 / 2 shared
Cabernard, Livia
1 / 2 shared
Roscher, Lisa
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2023
2020
2018

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Vollertsen, Jes
  • Liu, Yuanli
  • Prikler, Bence
  • Bordós, Gábor
  • Hasemann, Christiane
  • Bergmann, Melanie
  • Wekerle, Claudia
  • Tekman, Mine B.
  • Gerdts, Gunnar
  • Primpke, Sebastian
  • Cabernard, Livia
  • Roscher, Lisa
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Does microplastic analysis method affect our understanding of microplastics in the environment?

  • Vollertsen, Jes
  • Liu, Yuanli
  • Prikler, Bence
  • Bordós, Gábor
  • Lorenz, Claudia
Abstract

<p>Two analytical methods – both in active use at different laboratories – were tested and compared against each other to investigate how the procedure influences microplastic (MP) detection with micro Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (μFTIR) imaging. A representative composite water sample collected from the Danube River was divided into 12 subsamples, and processed following two different methods, which differed in MP isolation procedures, the optical substrate utilized for the chemical imaging, and the detection limit of the spectroscopic instruments. The first instrument had a nominal pixel resolution of 5.5 μm, while the second had a nominal resolution of 25 μm. These two methods led to different MP abundance, MP mass estimates, but not MP characteristics. Only looking at MPs &gt; 50 μm, the first method showed a higher MP abundance, namely 418–2571 MP m<sup>−3</sup> with MP mass estimates of 703–1900 μg m<sup>−3</sup>, while the second method yielded 16.7–72.1 MP m<sup>−3</sup> with mass estimates of 222–439 μg m<sup>−3</sup>. Looking deeper into the steps of the methods showed that the MP isolation procedure contributed slightly to the difference in the result. However, the variability between individual samples was larger than the difference caused by the methods. Somewhat sample-dependent, the use of two different substrates (zinc selenide windows versus Anodisc filters) caused a substantial difference between results. This was due to a higher tendency for particles to agglomerate on the Anodisc filters, and an ‘IR-halo’ around particles on ZnSe windows when scanning with μFTIR. Finally, the μFTIR settings and nominal resolution caused significant differences in identifying MP size and mass estimate, which showed that the smaller the pixel size, the more accurately the particle boundary can be defined. These findings contributed to explaining disagreements between studies and addressed the importance of harmonization of methods.</p>

Topics
  • zinc
  • composite
  • Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy