0
Article Tier 2 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

AI summary Read the abstract

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.

More Papers Like This

Article Tier 2

Potential sources of microplastic contamination in laboratory analysis and a protocol for minimising contamination

AI summary Read the abstract

Scientists identified multiple sources of microplastic contamination that can be accidentally introduced during laboratory analysis of biological samples, including from lab water, chemicals, and air. By filtering reagents, pre-treating glass fiber filters, and using a clean working environment, they reduced lab-introduced contamination by 70–100%. These findings are important for accurate microplastic research: without such precautions, studies can significantly overestimate how much plastic is actually present in animal tissues or environmental samples.

Article Tier 2

Plastic-on-Plastic: Underestimated Contamination Risks in Micro- and Nanoplastic Research

AI summary Read the abstract

Researchers reviewed how the plastic lab equipment, airborne fibers, and purified water used in microplastic and nanoplastic experiments contribute unintended contamination to samples, demonstrating scenarios where laboratory-derived particles can match or exceed intended experimental doses and thereby skew dose-response findings.

Article Tier 2

Common laboratory reagents: Are they a double-edged sword in microplastics research?

AI summary Read the abstract

This study tested whether common laboratory reagents themselves are contaminated with microplastics and found measurable plastic particles in several widely used chemicals, raising the concern that lab reagents could be an overlooked source of contamination in microplastic research.

Review Tier 2

Cross-Contamination as a Problem in Collection and Analysis of Environmental Samples Containing Microplastics—A Review

AI summary Read the abstract

This review examines cross-contamination as a systematic problem in microplastic research, finding that synthetic fibers from clothing, laboratory plastics, and airborne particles can contaminate samples during collection and analysis, and reviewing methods to minimize and account for procedural contamination.

Article Tier 2

How can contamination be prevented during laboratory analysis of atmospheric samples for microplastics?

AI summary Read the abstract

This study tested various laboratory practices to reduce contamination when measuring microplastics in air samples, finding that working under laminar flow reduced background contamination compared to fume hoods or open lab environments. Pre-treating filters by heating them to 450 degrees Celsius cut microplastic counts by 50%, and pre-filtering solutions was essential since working liquids themselves were contaminated. These quality control findings are critical because without proper contamination prevention, studies on airborne microplastics may significantly overcount or misidentify particles.

Research digests by email

When a large batch of papers lands in the Atlas, we read through it and send a short write-up of what stood out.

Email me about

Share this paper