34 ms·

The problem I see is labeling something with an assumption whether it’s becausenitnmakes good news or due to bias. If it’s unknown I am not ok with calling it

The problem I see is labeling something with an assumption whether it’s becausenitnmakes good news or due to bias. If it’s unknown I am not ok with calling it plastic. I would think that the more appropriate term would be “non-water based substance”. Ultimately what we are talking about is contaminants? Or could this be heavy mineral deposits in the water? Do they know? Is this natural or being classified as a real contaminant?

inimino 7y ago
Short answer: yes, it's definitely mostly plastic. https://orbmedia.org/sites/default/files/FinalBottledWaterReport.pdf https://orbmedia.org/sites/default/files/FinalBottledWaterRe... > In total nearly 2000 microplastic particles > 100 um were extracted from all of the filters, with nearly 1000 (~50%) being further analyzed by FTIR. Obtained FTIR spectra were compared to libraries of known spectra in order to confirm and identify the polymeric content of the particles. All particles analyzed were either best matched to a polymer, plastic additive or known plastic binder providing additional supporting evidence that Nile Red selectively adsorbed to microplastic particles within the bottled water. With this spectroscopic confirmation, it can be concluded that on average each bottle of water contains at least 10.4 MPP/L (Table 2). [...] > Given the limitations of the lab, particles < 100 um (the so-called ‘NR tagged particles’) were not able to be confirmed as polymeric through spectroscopic analyses (FTIR &/or Raman spectroscopy). However, in testing of various stains and dyes that could be employed for microplastic detection and analysis within environmental samples with a greater potential for misidentification and false positives (i.e., sediments and open-water environmental samples) both Maes et al. (2107) and Erni-Cassola et al. (2017) concluded that Nile Red (NR) was very selective, especially within the time scales of incubation employed, and could be used for the rapid detection of microplastics without the need for additional spectroscopic analysis. To be sure that is why this stain was employed for this study. Additionally FTIR analysis was done on fluorescing particles >100 um and every particle analyzed was confirmed to be polymeric. Even further, NR is well-established to selectively adsorb to hydrophobic (‘water-fearing’) materials and, as such, will not adsorb to the only contents reasonably expected to be within bottled water, water &/or its mineral components.
IggleSniggle 7y ago
It’s only “unknown” from a scientific skepticism perspective. The scientist is saying, “all the evidence that we can gather points with ubiquity towards this being plastic, but there is some possibility that there is an as yet undiscovered particle that is otherwise elusive to detection.” That just being a good scientist. The mark of a scientist that you should not trust is the one who says, “we know this to be true with absolute certainty” instead of “all of the evidence I’ve gathered leads me to personally believe with absolutely certainty, but there could be something else going on I haven’t considered.”

inimino 7y ago

Short answer: yes, it's definitely mostly plastic. https://orbmedia.org/sites/default/files/FinalBottledWaterReport.pdf https://orbmedia.org/sites/default/files/FinalBottledWaterRe... > In total nearly 2000 microplastic particles > 100 um were extracted from all of the filters, with nearly 1000 (~50%) being further analyzed by FTIR. Obtained FTIR spectra were compared to libraries of known spectra in order to confirm and identify the polymeric content of the particles. All particles analyzed were either best matched to a polymer, plastic additive or known plastic binder providing additional supporting evidence that Nile Red selectively adsorbed to microplastic particles within the bottled water. With this spectroscopic confirmation, it can be concluded that on average each bottle of water contains at least 10.4 MPP/L (Table 2). [...] > Given the limitations of the lab, particles < 100 um (the so-called ‘NR tagged particles’) were not able to be confirmed as polymeric through spectroscopic analyses (FTIR &/or Raman spectroscopy). However, in testing of various stains and dyes that could be employed for microplastic detection and analysis within environmental samples with a greater potential for misidentification and false positives (i.e., sediments and open-water environmental samples) both Maes et al. (2107) and Erni-Cassola et al. (2017) concluded that Nile Red (NR) was very selective, especially within the time scales of incubation employed, and could be used for the rapid detection of microplastics without the need for additional spectroscopic analysis. To be sure that is why this stain was employed for this study. Additionally FTIR analysis was done on fluorescing particles >100 um and every particle analyzed was confirmed to be polymeric. Even further, NR is well-established to selectively adsorb to hydrophobic (‘water-fearing’) materials and, as such, will not adsorb to the only contents reasonably expected to be within bottled water, water &/or its mineral components.

IggleSniggle 7y ago

It’s only “unknown” from a scientific skepticism perspective. The scientist is saying, “all the evidence that we can gather points with ubiquity towards this being plastic, but there is some possibility that there is an as yet undiscovered particle that is otherwise elusive to detection.” That just being a good scientist. The mark of a scientist that you should not trust is the one who says, “we know this to be true with absolute certainty” instead of “all of the evidence I’ve gathered leads me to personally believe with absolutely certainty, but there could be something else going on I haven’t considered.”