We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Suspected sources of microplastics and nanoplastics: Contamination from experimental reagents and solvents
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers tested common laboratory chemicals used in microplastic detection and found that many of them already contain microplastic particles as contaminants. Hydrogen peroxide, sodium chloride solutions, and other standard reagents all introduced measurable amounts of plastic particles, potentially skewing research results. The study highlights an important but overlooked source of error in microplastic research and recommends that scientists pre-filter their reagents to avoid false readings.
There is an increasing concern about the potential effects of microplastics (MPs) and nanoplastics on human health and other organisms. For the separation and detection of MPs, there are various approaches, and the distinct procedures led to different results. However, the presence of MPs in the reagents was not addressed, which could cause false and/or inaccurate results during MPs detection. In this study, the chemical reagents commonly used for the separation and detection of MPs were selected to ascertain whether these reagents introduce MPs. It was shown that a large number of MPs were detected in the reagent and solvent samples. The largest number of MPs (>1 μm) was detected in the KOH reagent, with the abundance of 3070 items/g. The order of MPs abundance in the selected reagents was: KOH > NaCl > CaCl > SDS > NaI > HO. The types of MPs were the same as the body and stopper of the reagent packaging bottles. MPs size detected in reagent bottles was primarily smaller than 10 μm. The abundance of MPs in the reagents were independent of their purity, however, there was a certain difference in MPs abundance in reagents from different manufacturers. Furthermore, the presence of nanoplastics (< 1 μm) was verified in the reagents through Py-GCMS, with the abundance (39.47-43.01 mg/kg) higher than that of MPs. The obtained results in this study raised specific requirements and cautions for MPs and nanoplastics related research in terms of quality control. Also, this work can facilitate a more accurate assessment of MPs concentrations in the environment.
More Papers Like This
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.
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.
Microplastics are overestimated due to poor quality control of reagents
AI summary Read the abstract
This study demonstrated that inadequate quality control of chemical reagents used in microplastic analysis can introduce contamination that leads to systematic overestimation of microplastic concentrations in environmental samples, highlighting a critical methodological flaw in the field.
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.
Identifying laboratory sources of microplastic and nanoplastic contamination from the air, water, and consumables
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.
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.