0
Article ? AI-assigned paper type based on the abstract. Classification may not be perfect — flag errors using the feedback button. Tier 2 ? Original research — experimental, observational, or case-control study. Direct primary evidence. Nanoplastics Sign in to save

Identifying laboratory sources of microplastic and nanoplastic contamination from the air, water, and consumables

Journal of Hazardous Materials 2023 52 citations ? Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count. Score: 50 ? 0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.
Jennifer L. Lavers Nina R. Jones, Jack Rivers‐Auty, Nina R. Jones, Jennifer L. Lavers Jennifer L. Lavers Jennifer L. Lavers Thomas Rodemann, Thomas Rodemann, Jennifer L. Lavers Jennifer L. Lavers Jennifer L. Lavers Jennifer L. Lavers Alix M. de Jersey, Jack Rivers‐Auty, Jack Rivers‐Auty, Thomas Rodemann, Jennifer L. Lavers Jennifer L. Lavers Jennifer L. Lavers Thomas Rodemann, Thomas Rodemann, Jennifer L. Lavers Thomas Rodemann, Thomas Rodemann, Jennifer L. Lavers Jennifer L. Lavers Thomas Rodemann, Jennifer L. Lavers Thomas Rodemann, Jennifer L. Lavers Jack Rivers‐Auty, Thomas Rodemann, Jennifer L. Lavers Jack Rivers‐Auty, Jennifer L. Lavers Jennifer L. Lavers Jennifer L. Lavers Jennifer L. Lavers Jennifer L. Lavers Jennifer L. Lavers Jennifer L. Lavers

Summary

Researchers systematically tested common laboratory materials and procedures for plastic contamination and found that water sources, airflow, dust, and even glassware can introduce significant amounts of micro- and nanoplastics into samples. Surprisingly, glass consumables and aluminum foil, both commonly recommended as contamination controls, were themselves sources of plastic particles. The findings highlight that current best practices for preventing sample contamination in microplastic research may need to be revised.

Microplastic and nanoplastic research has proliferated in recent years in response to the escalating plastic pollution crisis. However, a lack of optimised methods for sampling and sample processing has potential implications for contaminating samples resulting in an overestimation of the quantity of microplastics and nanoplastics present in environmental samples. In response, a series of recommendations have been made, but most have not been quantified or validated sources of contamination. In the present study, we investigated sources of plastic contamination in common laboratory procedures including water sources (e.g., Milli-Q), consumables (e.g., unburnt glassware), airflow (e.g., fume hood) and dust. Using flow cytometry, we identified water, air flow and dust as sources of significant contamination. Milli-Q and reverse osmosis were the least contaminated sources when compared with tap water. Interestingly, current recommendations are to use glass consumables in replacement of plastic consumables, however, we have identified glassware and glass consumables as a significant source of contamination. Current best practice is to cover the glass tube with aluminium foil to reduce airborne contamination, but we found fresh aluminium foil to be a significant source of contamination, bringing light to the limitations foil has as a contamination control measure. Lastly, we identified significant quantities of microplastics and nanoplastics present in dust collected within the laboratory, suggesting this is a widespread and underestimated source of contamination. We have provided validated sources of contamination for both consumables and common laboratory procedures and provided mitigation strategies based on these. Additional recommendations include the appropriate design of experimental controls to quantify levels of introduced contamination based on methods and the detection techniques utilised. The application of these mitigation strategies and appropriate experimental design will allow for more accurate estimations on the level of microplastic and nanoplastic contamination within environmental samples.

Sign in to start a discussion.

Share this paper