- I had strong echoes of a naieve lab experience in the 1970s: testing for organophosphates in seawater at the Forth Estuary was basically impossible except for gross amounts, because the standard analytical glass washing we used contaminated the glassware. You have to maintain a completely independent suite of glassware from pipettes all the way through to reaction vessels, and chromatography cells, and wash them with chromic acid, or special formulations.
(I don't work in this field any more, I was a lowly bottle washer and lab tech on a job creation scheme, I am sure the field has moved forward)
by martingoodson
1 subcomments
- People seem to be misunderstanding this paper. It doesn't claim that any previous papers have overestimated contamination. That would only happen if scientists didn't routinely use blanks as a comparison, which they do.
E.g. "A procedural filter blank was created during each sample batch and analysed alongside the samples, to enumerate potential contamination that could have been introduced during the extraction process."
https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/476076/1/1_s2.0_S014765132300286...
- This is why it is good lab procedure to always "run a blank." A blank is simply a sample that is constructed exactly like a real sample but without the thing you are studying. This way you quickly learn about contamination from tools/gloves/environment etc.
- Previously discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47561711
by citrin_ru
1 subcomments
- If lab gloves specifically designed to not contaminate samples are shedding microplactis particules I would expect plastic not designed for this to shed much more micro-plactis particules when it's used.
- We don’t even need to see scientific evidence to see that we’re probably using too much plastic. Most stores and especially supermarkets are full of plastic. Most clothing contains plastics. It’s just hard to avoid even if you want to.
- The fact that there's so much microplastics everywhere that it's hard for us to even study tissue in isolate is already not encouraging.
Also the main finding of concern imo in the original Nature paper wasn't the finding that we have a plastic fork-worth of microplastics in our brains. It's the finding that brain tissue seems to concentrate microplastics at a much higher rate than other tissue in the body
I find it concerning that there seems to be such a concerted effort to downplay the significance of that finding
- I'm late responding, but why no backscattered electron images from the SEMs?
The micropastics should have a really low average Z, I think the stearates will be much higher and distinguishable in a BSE image, and (not to mention if you observe their x-ray spectrum...)
So I'm either confused about something or pointing out that they're hard to distinguish in an SE image is not really a useful point, ... it's more relevant that SEM isn't the typical tool used for these counting efforts.
I'd look myself but I recently moved and the SEM is in parts. :)
by Panzerschrek
0 subcomment
- Someone needs to analyze samples which can't be contaminated. Like samples from an asteroid. As I know, for a couple of years ago there was a delivery from one.
Hacker News