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. Detection Methods Food & Water Sign in to save

Can the presence of additives result in false positive errors for microplastics in infant feeding bottles?

Food Additives & Contaminants Part A 2021 22 citations ? Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count. Score: 35 ? 0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.
Maria Nadine Gerhard, Maria Nadine Gerhard, Darena Schymanski, Darena Schymanski, Darena Schymanski, Darena Schymanski, Darena Schymanski, Darena Schymanski, Maria Nadine Gerhard, Maria Nadine Gerhard, Darena Schymanski, Darena Schymanski, Darena Schymanski, Hans‐Ulrich Humpf Hans‐Ulrich Humpf Hans‐Ulrich Humpf Ingo Ebner, Hans‐Ulrich Humpf Ingo Ebner, Melanie Esselen, Melanie Esselen, T. Stahl, T. Stahl, Hans‐Ulrich Humpf Hans‐Ulrich Humpf

Summary

This study investigated whether plastic additives in polypropylene infant feeding bottles could cause false-positive results when testing for microplastics using standard methods. The researchers found that some compounds from the plastic material were being misidentified as microplastics in analytical tests. This highlights a potential source of error in studies reporting microplastic release from baby bottles, suggesting some estimates may be inflated.

Polymers

In recent years, it has been shown that food contact materials can be a potential source of microplastics (MP). Recently, it was reported that more than 16 million polypropylene (PP) particles L<sup>-1</sup> may be released from infant feeding bottles (IFBs) made of PP. In the present study seven different IFBs were investigated by the same method used in the aforementioned publication. In our tests, however, only one IFB showed a level of MP above the limit of detection. More importantly, the MP detected were not of the same material as the bottle and are more likely the result of contamination. In addition, there was a notable difference in released MP particles when the water simulant was filtered for µ-Raman spectroscopy at hot temperature (70°C) instead of filtering it after cooling down to room temperature. Thermal desorption gas chromatography mass spectrometry showed that these differences may be the result of migration and precipitation of additives such as fatty acid esters, often used as release agents in bottle production. These observations, that migrating additives could result in false positive errors for MP, indicate the need for critical consideration when polymers have been subjected to heat.

Sign in to start a discussion.

Share this paper