4 ms·

Just to clarify for you, their selection study was purely sea and lake salts.

microcolonel 10y ago
They really ought to have put that in the title. They could have easily said "the presence of microplastics in saltwater salts from different countries".
- mentalpiracy 10y ago
  Possibly so, but this is filed as environmental monitoring, so I think most people in the field this article is written for wouldn't have your same uncertainty. Salt derived from underground sources wouldn't be at risk of microplastics contamination.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Well, but there might be other sources for plastic contamination, as they discuss. And there "is" nothing in the article with evidence for origin. Or even a statement like "We tested samples of lake and sea salt." Only those two lake salts are mentioned specifically. Maybe it's just an oversight, but it could also be just their assumptions. Maybe it's really "We tested samples of salt that were presumably produced from lake water and seawater."
mirimir 10y ago
OK, so I just went back and read carefully about that point. I don't think that they actually say clearly that they looked only at sea and lake salt. They talk about contamination pathways for sea and lake salt. And they mention lake salt from Malaysia and Iran. But Methods has: > A total of 17 brands of salt from Australia, France, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Portugal, and South Africa were purchased from a Malaysian market.
- mentalpiracy 10y ago
  Very first paragraph of the introduction. > Accordingly, it is expected that products originating from the contaminated water bodies are also loaded with MPs. This sentence is the entire premise of the study. Testing non-waterbody-derived salts would not provide any valid data in pursuit of that hypothesis. Furthermore the entire body of the abstract, introduction, and discussion discusses marine microparticles, impacts on aquatic health, and whatnot.
  - wodenokoto 10y ago
    It would give us a baseline. E.g, does the salt get contaminated with MP through production and packaging?
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    That confirms that they assume all their table salt is from water. I have only skimmed the article, so I may be missing something, but the only origin information I saw was country of origin and that they "were purchased from a Malaysian market". If the researchers actually confirmed that each brand came from water and not a mine, they don't mention that that I can see. If I've missed something, please let me know.
- pilsetnieks 10y ago
  To be honest, I wonder if "purchased from a Malaysian market" might not be a factor here, and if the products are truly from Australia, France, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal, etc.

They really ought to have put that in the title. They could have easily said "the presence of microplastics in saltwater salts from different countries".

mentalpiracy 10y ago
Possibly so, but this is filed as environmental monitoring, so I think most people in the field this article is written for wouldn't have your same uncertainty. Salt derived from underground sources wouldn't be at risk of microplastics contamination.
- mirimir 10y ago
  Well, but there might be other sources for plastic contamination, as they discuss. And there "is" nothing in the article with evidence for origin. Or even a statement like "We tested samples of lake and sea salt." Only those two lake salts are mentioned specifically. Maybe it's just an oversight, but it could also be just their assumptions. Maybe it's really "We tested samples of salt that were presumably produced from lake water and seawater."

mirimir 10y ago

OK, so I just went back and read carefully about that point. I don't think that they actually say clearly that they looked only at sea and lake salt. They talk about contamination pathways for sea and lake salt. And they mention lake salt from Malaysia and Iran. But Methods has: > A total of 17 brands of salt from Australia, France, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Portugal, and South Africa were purchased from a Malaysian market.

mentalpiracy 10y ago
Very first paragraph of the introduction. > Accordingly, it is expected that products originating from the contaminated water bodies are also loaded with MPs. This sentence is the entire premise of the study. Testing non-waterbody-derived salts would not provide any valid data in pursuit of that hypothesis. Furthermore the entire body of the abstract, introduction, and discussion discusses marine microparticles, impacts on aquatic health, and whatnot.
- wodenokoto 10y ago
  It would give us a baseline. E.g, does the salt get contaminated with MP through production and packaging?
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  That confirms that they assume all their table salt is from water. I have only skimmed the article, so I may be missing something, but the only origin information I saw was country of origin and that they "were purchased from a Malaysian market". If the researchers actually confirmed that each brand came from water and not a mine, they don't mention that that I can see. If I've missed something, please let me know.
pilsetnieks 10y ago
To be honest, I wonder if "purchased from a Malaysian market" might not be a factor here, and if the products are truly from Australia, France, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal, etc.