Scientists find about a quarter million invisible microplastic particles in a liter of bottled water
Randi Libin-Straub
News Article: Scientists find about a quarter million invisible microplastic particles in a liter of bottled water
Peer-Reviewed Article: Rapid single-particle chemical imaging of nanoplastics by SRS microscopy
Microplastics are of growing concern among medical
professionals and scientists. The exact effects of exposure to these particles
are still unknown. Designing a study to investigate their impacts on human
health or the environment is practically impossible -- at this point, no water
appears to be free from them so there is no control group. The ubiquitous
nature of these particles was reinforced by Potma et. al¹ and reported on by
Seth Borenstein.²
The aim of the study by Potma et. al was twofold. They aimed
to further investigate the characteristics of both microplastics and
nanoplastics. While the methods for quantification and characterization of
microplastics (ranging in size from 1 μm to 5 mm) are well-established, those
for nanoplastics (those smaller than 1 μm) are not. This was the second focus
of the paper: developing better analytical tools for investigating plastic
particles smaller than one micron.
The group focused on hyperspectral stimulated Raman
scattering (SRS), a form of non-linear spectroscopy to determine concentration,
size, and chemical composition of the particles. They started with polystyrene
standards held stationary in agarose gel. This was made with D₂O to shift one
of water's signals away from 3000 cm-1, preventing any overlap with
a prominent C-H bond’s signal. While they were able to achieve signals using nanoparticle
polystyrene standards, the specificity of the method suffered. To correct this
issue, the team used algorithms they developed which quantified the
similarities of the spectra of different bond types. They then applied this to
several other polymers and found they were able to positively differentiate
between all polymer types, even at the nano scale.
They took these developments and applied them to samples
from three brands of bottled water. Each sample contained multiple types of
microplastics. They found detectible concentrations of every measured polymer in each brand of water. Additionally, they found that different polymers were more common at specific
size ranges and hypothesized that this may be a factor of the micro-nanoplastic’s
origin: those which were more recently introduced would be larger and those which
were introduced towards the beginning of processing would be smaller in size. Knowing
the size ranges of these different polymers may allow scientists and medical
professionals to better predict the outcomes of exposure to these particles.
Borenstein, a reporter for the Associated Press, and a professor
of journalism at New York University,³ reported on these findings. I was
impressed by his ability to explain the size of these particles in terms the
general public would understand. Additionally, he not only noted that the
concentration of microplastic particles, he also acknowledged the possibility
that the particles were entering the water at different points in the treatment
and bottling process. I’m also pleased that he interviewed all four authors of
the paper and noted that “they were cutting back on their bottled water use
after they conducted the survey.” I’m also interested in the quote he included
from a statement by the International Bottle Watered Association, which I didn’t
know existed before reading this article. The quote he included appears to criticize
media outlets for reporting on microplastics. The quote implies that because
analytical standards are still being developed, reporting on microplastics was
careless because it would create unnecessary fear in consumers (both of the media
and of bottled water). I think it’s a particularly good quote to include in an
article about a study which worked to further develop these standards that the
International Bottle Watered Association seems to think are the cause of “no
scientific consensus” about the harms of microplastics. This quote was sandwiched
between quotes from scientists who are in agreement that there are harms being
caused by microplastics.
Borenstein didn’t go very in-depth into the analytical
methods developed and used in this study, but I don’t think the article suffers
because of it. The methods are complicated and took me several hours to
understand. I don’t think the general public would benefit from the inclusion
of the details of the process, especially because the article does address that
“new research tools” were developed in the process.
My one critique is that the link that looks like it goes to
the research article just links to the home page of the journal – slightly frustrating
for someone who actually wants to access the paper itself.
Overall I’m impressed with the article and would rate it as a 9.5/10.
References:
(1) Qian, N.; Gao, X.; Lang, X.; Deng, H.;
Bratu, T. M.; Chen, Q.; Stapleton, P.; Yan, B.; Min, W. Rapid Single-Particle
Chemical Imaging of Nanoplastics by SRS Microscopy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
2024, 121 (3), e2300582121.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2300582121.
(2) Scientists find
about a quarter million invisible microplastic particles in a liter of bottled
water. PBS News.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/scientists-find-about-a-quarter-million-invisible-microplastic-particles-in-a-liter-of-bottled-water
(accessed 2024-11-10).
(3) Seth Borenstein -
Science Writer - The Associated Press | LinkedIn.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/seth-borenstein-438b5a8 (accessed 2024-11-10).
Hi Randi, great job on the blog post! I agree that going in depth on the analytical methods of the paper wouldn’t have benefited the general public and that the news article presents the information in an understandable way. The one criticism I have for the news article is that I feel like it lacks focus. While the author brings up really good points/quotes, I wish they had provided more analysis and didn’t jump around from topic to topic so much; for example, talking about the the co-authors bottled water usage in conjunction with comments on the methods of the study and including the Bottled Water Association quote without directly addressing their claim. Why do you think the author included quotes from Denise Hardesty and The Bottled Water Association which bring the seriousness of micro and nanoplastics in water into question?
ReplyDeleteHi Sofia! I think the way news is conveyed a lot of the time is a less traditional form of journalism. It used to be standard practice to speak to the "stakeholders" in an issue -- those who the author agrees with and those they do not. Traditionally, a journalist didn't add their own thoughts to the story. They simply "reported" it (which is where we get the term "reporter" from). We may not agree with the Bottled Water Association, but they are a stakeholder. It is (in theory) up to the reader to determine what they think based on the facts given. Unfortunately this style of journalism is not as popular as it once was. We can quickly end up in echo chambers which reinforce our own thoughts and opinions this way. I mostly disagree with the Bottle Water Association, but they are right that we need to develop more analytical tools to research microplastics and nanoplastics. Again, I don't agree with their statement about how media reports "unnecessarily scare consumers," and I think their statement wasn't made in good faith. But that's my decision to make as the reader. The journalist's job is to faithfully present the information and then let me decide.
DeleteNice analysis Randi, I fully agree with your high review. Something I found particularly interesting was how PBS news article commented on the chemical additives that are present in micro and nanoplastics. I think when a typical consumer thinks of a plastic they think of it as a bulk item that is not full of additives (or more so that it is one item). I believe less people consider all of the processing and additives needed to both make plastics and to modify them for commercial use. I like how the PBS article stressed how the chemical additives "...could cause cell stress, DNA damage and change metabolism or cell function." This angle is not taken in the PNAS article but would surely bring up the urgency of microplastic contamination issues. Do you think that framing microplastics/nanoplastics as a chemical shuttler rather than just a dangerous particle itself a productive way to describe microplastic's issues to the general public, or do you believe that how we are currently describing the issues sufficient?
ReplyDeleteThat's a really good question, Joe. I do think that might make people more cognizant of the variety of impacts these nanoplastics and microplastics can have on us. I do know there has been talk of the harms of plastics before -- do you remember the whole BPA thing?
DeleteNow every reusable plastic water bottle I see has "BPA-free" on it. So I do think the general public has some idea that there are multiple types of plastic in one product, whether that's a bottle or a plate or a kid's toy. Adding the concept of, as you phrased it, "a chemical shuttler" may help people understand that there's more to it than just a few bad compounds.
Great blog post Randi! I agree that Borenstein did a great job making particle sizes accessible to the public, as well as the different routes by which microplastics can enter the water. I also agree that he did not need to dive into the analytical methods of this paper, as they are very complex and would likely decrease the reader's understanding of the article. I also feel that he alludes to the methods to a sufficient extent (by mentioning "the dual laser microscope technology") for the reader to look into the general technique further if they so choose (rather than going into the details of "hyperspectral stimulated Raman scattering (SRS) imaging". Moreover, I think the author does a great job bringing up a lot of key data points from the paper. One small critique of this article is that the author refers to "previous studies," but does not provide a link to any of these studies (though I do not think this has a significant impact on the quality of the article). Overall, I agree with your assessment that the PBS News article did a great job!
ReplyDeleteGreat work Randi! I also thought Borenstein wrote a very solid article and had a difficult time finding any complaints. One thing I really appreciated was the number of different viewpoints the author brought in regarding microplastics in water. As you mentioned, I loved the inclusion of the quote from the Bottled Water Association (which I was surprised to find has a very nice website) to exemplify some of the backlash to microplastic research. This quote was definitely strategically placed nearby quotes from well-regarded researchers about the seriousness of consuming microplastics. The figure you chose to include in your blog post nicely summarizes the most important findings of the research article. I did notice that Borenstein chose not to include any figures - do you think the article could have benefited from adding a figure from the paper? Personally, I enjoy seeing data visualized to hammer home the findings from the research.
ReplyDeleteI'm not at all surprised the Bottled Water Association has a good website. Have you seen what a bottle of water costs these days? I did laugh when I saw that they're advertising that water has 0 calories. Absolutely ridiculous.
DeleteI think Borenstein chose not to include figures because 1. They're copyrighted and that's kind of a pain and 2. I think the figures are too technical. I don't know most of the plastic abbreviations (to me PA is a state, not a polymer) and I don't think a schematic diagram of the experimental procedure would have helped readers have a deeper understanding of the article's content. I think the best way to have handled this would have been a direct link to the Qian paper.
You did a great job summarizing the science behind Potma et al.'s study and how Borenstein presented it. I like how you made complex research about microplastics and nanoplastics easier to understand by focusing on the basics.
ReplyDeleteYour point about the International Bottled Water Association’s statement adds depth, showing the pushback sometimes faced when scientific discoveries affect big industries. It’s great that you highlight Borenstein’s clear style, especially since he breaks down scientific ideas in a way that most readers can follow without feeling overwhelmed. Including both scientists’ and the industry’s perspectives makes the topic feel balanced and shows the impact this research might have on everyday choices, like drinking bottled water. Finally, I also agree that the journal link could have gone directly to the study itself, making it easier for readers who want more detail.
It's refreshing to see such an accurate and unbiased pop media article! I agree with your rating of 9.5/10, I think Borenstein does a fantastic job distilling the research findings, integrating quotes from the authors to establish their integrity, and commenting on the societal implications of having microplastics in our bottled water. I respect their strategy pulling a contradicting quote from a plastics company to discredit the counterargument; this type of pushback is so important in the context of corporations and regulation, because corporations have a history of doing anything to increase profits at the detriment of the general public's health. With the upcoming deregulations predicted to be rolled out by our government, it is more crucial than ever that we use our science to identify community issues (like microplastics in our water supply), spread the knowledge (in pop media like this), and promote measures that protect the people.
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right about the upcoming deregulations and the necessity of scientists communicating with the general public through popular media. I think one of the issues (and there are a lot of them) is that scientists aren't taught to communicate with journalists or media outlets in general. It's one thing to present our research to a room full of other experts. It's a totally different thing to explain our findings to people with little or no scientific background. Do you think this is something we should get training in?
DeleteIn agreement with your post and other peoples' comments, it really doesn't come as a surprise that a writer from the AP did such a great job summarizing this article in an unbiased manner. The article overall is extremely accessible for an audience who may not be informed on micro- or nanoplastics and brings in a "global" perspective on whether or not these plastics are an issue, which should really be a non-argument. The International Bottled Water Association seems to justify themselves with events such as natural disasters for why bottled water is important (Which I can agree with, bottled water is important especially when there is a lack of access to clean water), but overall also shields themselves from dangers of microplastics by just saying the evidence is insufficient. It's a pretty scummy way to defend yourself in my opinion, but what can you expect from a group with a name like that. On a more general note, you wrote in a previous reply that having the opinion of both sides is important (Which I agree with), but I think my question regarding that is: Can the public always be trusted to act in their own best interest? There used to be a time when bloodletting (Removing blood from a patient to prevent illness) and heroin in cough syrup were considered good/healthy, but those have long since been proven false. I think it is important for people to be informed and have access to media that can help inform them, but I also do not always think the public can act in their own interest, so I am curious for your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI do think access to a portable clean water source is important, but why does the bottle need to be plastic?
DeleteAs for presenting both sides -- I don't think both sides necessarily need to have the same weight given to them in an article and I don't think they need to be given the same level of authority. I think one of the reasons news has gotten the way it is can be tied to the trend of not trusting the general public with information. I believe the watering down of nuanced ideas has led to the way we are spoon-fed the world around us. There are certainly times to withhold information from the general public, but I don't think water bottles are one of those situations.
We, as a species haven't always made the best choices, but I like to think that as we learn more, we make better choices -- maybe not at first, but eventually. Also bloodletting IS used still, but only for a few specific conditions, like polycythemia vera, a blood disorder. Anyways, nuance is really the key, and I think we as a society really need to work on it.
Great job on analyzing this news article and the publication! I agree your comment on the news that it covered the conclusion of the paper well. In addition, I found another published paper also studying the method to measure the concentration of plastics in soil via UV-vis Spectroscopy. You might find that is also interesting. Here is the link: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240617173541.htm
ReplyDeleteLet me know whether you find the relatable
I was not a huge fan of this article. It may just be the author's personal writing style, but to me the paragraphs felt clunky and disjointed, largely because there was a paragraph break nearly every sentence, especially nearing the end of the article. Additionally, it felt as though the author had run out of things to say: I feel it would have been more powerful to simply say "All four co-authors interviewed said they were cutting back on their bottled water use after they conducted the study" rather than following it with quotes from two of the authors and further discussion from an unrelated chemist. Much of the later half of the article follows the structure of 'Scientist name who works at this place says "quote", then paragraph break', which makes it a clunky read overall. Further analysis of explanation of any of these quotes could have helped. The science itself was solid, so I'd rate the article an 8/10.
ReplyDelete