131–140 of 282 posts
So the takeaway is: we've been accidentally adding "microplastics" with the very gloves we use to avoid contamination. That's almost poetic
Clough prepared the substrates while wearing nitrile gloves, which is recommended by the guidance of literature in the microplastics field. But when she examined the substrates to estimate how many microplastics she captured, the results were many thousands of times greater than what she expected to find."
------------------
The very first thing that should have been done is to run results for a substrate that hadn't been placed in the sampler. You need to know what a zero result looks like just to characterize your setup. You'd also want to run samples with known and controlled micro-plastic concentrations. Why didn't they do this? Their results are utterly meaningless if they didn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> I'm amazed that wasn't taken into account! This was taken into account: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47563392
You found a paper saying that contamination is possible. That doesn’t mean that most of these plastic studies are doing the necessary controls, let alone the (almost impossible) task of preventing the contamination in a laboratory setting where nanomolar detection levels are used to make broad claims.
There is practically universal recognition among microplastics researchers that contamination is possible and that strong quality controls are needed, and to be transparent and reproducible, they have a habit of documenting their methodology. Many papers and discussions suggest avoiding all plastics as part of the methodology, e.g. “Do’s and don’ts of microplastic research: a comprehensive guide” https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/wecn.2023.61
Another thing to consider is that papers generally compare against baseline/control samples, and overestimating microplastics in baseline samples may lead to a lower ratio of reported microplastics in the test samples, not higher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the perfect cover!
Someone should make a show about that… her name could be Dexterette!
The Bay Harbor Butcheress[0] :)
[0]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/butcheress (at First I made it as a joke but turns out that butcheress is a real term, indeed)
"The researchers used air samplers which are fitted with a metal substrate. Air passes through the sampler, and particles from the atmosphere deposit onto the substrate. Then, using light-based spectroscopy, the researchers are able to determine what kind of particles are found on the substrate. Clough prepared the substrates while wearing nitrile gloves, which is recommended by the guidance of literature in the micr…
[flagged]
Just the fact that the lab gets to publish something that's regime-friendly is beneficial to them. Why was the study funded through the humanities department?
Yo dang, I hope YC is paying you enough to end up on St. Peter's naughty list, because that is where you are all headed.
"The researchers used air samplers which are fitted with a metal substrate. Air passes through the sampler, and particles from the atmosphere deposit onto the substrate. Then, using light-based spectroscopy, the researchers are able to determine what kind of particles are found on the substrate. Clough prepared the substrates while wearing nitrile gloves, which is recommended by the guidance of literature in the micr…
In surface science the baggy clear polyethylene are widely known to be cleaner than other options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So you are less likely to replace gloves when you should. To the contrary. You take off and throw out your gloves every time you finish doing something with raw meat. It's procedure. It's habit. You're never relying on "feel" to determine whether there are "raw chicken juices on you". Using "feel" is not reliable. I don't know why you think food service workers aren't constantly putting on new gloves, but doctors a…
> To the contrary. You take off and throw out your gloves every time you finish doing something with raw meat. It's procedure. It's habit. You are supposed to. I've seen plenty of fast food places where the gloves stay on between jobs. I'm sure there are upscale places that are better on this point. > You're never relying on "feel" to determine whether there are "raw chicken juices on you". Using "feel" is not reliab…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funnily, I believe the glove mandates for food prep are actually anti-hygiene. Unlike bare skin, you can't really feel when your gloves are contaminated. So you are less likely to replace gloves when you should. With bare hands, you can feel the raw chicken juices on you, so it's pretty natural to want to wash your hands right after handling the raw chicken. Gloves are important in medicine, but that's with proper us…
> So you are less likely to replace gloves when you should. To the contrary. You take off and throw out your gloves every time you finish doing something with raw meat. It's procedure. It's habit. You're never relying on "feel" to determine whether there are "raw chicken juices on you". Using "feel" is not reliable. I don't know why you think food service workers aren't constantly putting on new gloves, but doctors a…