Are scientists contaminating their own samples? New study shows we may
be emitting clouds of microfibers
More than 70% of microplastics found in samples from oceans and rivers
could come from the scientists collecting them

Date:
November 15, 2021
Source:
Staffordshire University
Summary:
More than 70% of microplastics found in samples from oceans and
rivers could come from the scientists collecting them. A new
article investigates procedural contamination when sampling for
microparticles in aquatic environments. The study shows that a
significant amount of microplastics and microfibres from scientists'
clothing and gear mixes with environmental pollution in the water
samples.



FULL STORY ==========================================================================
More than 70% of microplastics found in samples from oceans and rivers
could come from the scientists collecting them.


==========================================================================
A new paper by Staffordshire University and Rozalia Project, published
in Marine Pollution Bulletin, investigates procedural contamination when sampling for microparticles in aquatic environments. The study shows that
a significant amount of microplastics and microfibres from scientists'
clothing and gear mixes with environmental pollution in the water samples.

Claire Gwinnett, Professor in Forensic and Environmental Science at Staffordshire University, explained: "In the field this can occur
due to the dynamic nature of the environment such as wind or weather,
actions required to obtain samples and the close-proximity necessary
for scientists to procure and secure samples whether in a medium-sized
vessel, small boat or sampling from shore. In a mobile lab, this often
occurs due to using small, multi-use spaces and similar requirements for scientists to be in close proximity to the samples while processing."
Data was collected during an expedition along the Hudson River from
Rozalia Project's 60' oceanographic sailing research vessel, American
Promise. The team tracked contamination by collecting fibres from every possible source of contamination on the vessel including clothing worn by
both the science and boat teams, sail bags and tarps, sail and equipment control lines as well as interior textiles. By doing so, they created
a catalogue to which every fibre and fragment found in environmental
samples was first compared. If there was a match, that exact source
of procedural contamination was noted. If there was not a match, that microparticle was considered pollution.

The research found that when robust anti-contamination protocols were
not used when taking water samples (using a metal bucket for surface
samples and a Niskin bottle for mid-water column samples), 71.4% of
the microparticles in the samples were contamination; similarly, when anti-contamination protocols were not used when processing water samples
(using a vacuum filtration method), 68.4% of the microparticles in the
samples were contamination.

Co-lead author Rachael Z. Miller, Founder of Rozalia Project for a
Clean Ocean, said: "This is a study that was designed to strengthen the scientific process and has revealed the extent to which our clothing
sheds, not just in the washing machine or dryer, but as we wear it and
conduct ourselves in our everyday lives. It appears that we are all
Pigpen, but instead of walking around in a cloud of dirt, we may be
emitting clouds of microfibres.

"Some take-aways for everyday people from this study are to: take care
of the clothes we have -- that can be done by adapting laundry routines
to reduce fibre-breakage such as washing in cold water and air drying
when possible; being mindful of the clothing we choose -- more and more information is coming out about how much various types of fabrics shed,
and supporting brands and organizations who are aware of and addressing
the problem by working to better understand our textiles and who are
innovating to make them both more resilient and out of materials that
exert less pressure on our natural world, while still maintaining their
ability to protect us from the elements." The study also sets forth
methods inspired by forensic science that could make a 37% reduction in
the amount of procedural contamination mistakenly added to environmental samples during the collection phase of a study. This reduction can save research teams a significant amount of time by reducing the number of microparticles that must be analysed.

Solutions for future studies include outfitting the whole team in the
same low- shed, unusually colored garments ideally also with unusual
fibre morphology.

This would allow for rapid identification as contamination. It is
important for the entire boat crew to be included in these quality control considerations since fibres from the captain and first mate were also
found in samples during this study.

The researchers also describe a workflow using a polarizing light
microscope (PLM) that can save research teams both time and money
when microparticle, in particular microfibre, identifications must be
made. When paired with Easylift (R) tape, an innovation used for sampling
and fixing microparticles after vacuum filtration, this study found that
a PLM could produce a high-confidence/ correct material identification in
93.3% of the microfibres found in the water samples. PLMs can be obtained
for under $4,000 and take a fraction of the time to use compared to the
other methods.

Professor Gwinnett added: "Thinking like a forensic scientist
during sampling for microplastics has its benefits as this study has
shown. Forensic scientists are constantly thinking about how they might contaminate samples and how to prevent that. Forensic scientists also acknowledge that it is impossible to have zero contamination and instead
focus on creating protocols to minimise and monitor.

"By using forensic analysis techniques, which aim to fully
profile a particulate, including its morphological, optical
and chemical characteristics then these 'layers' of information
allow much more confident conclusions to be made as to whether
it is from the environment or from procedural contamination." ========================================================================== Story Source: Materials provided by Staffordshire_University. Note:
Content may be edited for style and length.


========================================================================== Journal Reference:
1. C. Gwinnett, R.Z. Miller. Are we contaminating our samples? A
preliminary
study to investigate procedural contamination during field
sampling and processing for microplastic and anthropogenic
microparticles. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2021; 173: 113095 DOI:
10.1016/ j.marpolbul.2021.113095 ==========================================================================

Link to news story: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/11/211115123448.htm

--- up 4 days, 2 hours, 55 minutes
* Origin: -=> Castle Rock BBS <=- Now Husky HPT Powered! (1:317/3)