Jones Nina R, de Jersey Alix M, Lavers Jennifer L, Rodemann Thomas, Rivers-Auty Jack
Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, 20 Castray Esplanade, Battery Point, Tasmania 7004, Australia; Tasmanian School of Medicine, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, 17 Liverpool Street, Hobart, Tasmania 7000, Australia.
Tasmanian School of Medicine, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, 17 Liverpool Street, Hobart, Tasmania 7000, Australia.
J Hazard Mater. 2024 Mar 5;465:133276. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.133276. Epub 2023 Dec 16.
Microplastic and nanoplastic research has proliferated in recent years in response to the escalating plastic pollution crisis. However, a lack of optimised methods for sampling and sample processing has potential implications for contaminating samples resulting in an overestimation of the quantity of microplastics and nanoplastics present in environmental samples. In response, a series of recommendations have been made, but most have not been quantified or validated sources of contamination. In the present study, we investigated sources of plastic contamination in common laboratory procedures including water sources (e.g., Milli-Q), consumables (e.g., unburnt glassware), airflow (e.g., fume hood) and dust. Using flow cytometry, we identified water, air flow and dust as sources of significant contamination. Milli-Q and reverse osmosis were the least contaminated sources when compared with tap water. Interestingly, current recommendations are to use glass consumables in replacement of plastic consumables, however, we have identified glassware and glass consumables as a significant source of contamination. Current best practice is to cover the glass tube with aluminium foil to reduce airborne contamination, but we found fresh aluminium foil to be a significant source of contamination, bringing light to the limitations foil has as a contamination control measure. Lastly, we identified significant quantities of microplastics and nanoplastics present in dust collected within the laboratory, suggesting this is a widespread and underestimated source of contamination. We have provided validated sources of contamination for both consumables and common laboratory procedures and provided mitigation strategies based on these. Additional recommendations include the appropriate design of experimental controls to quantify levels of introduced contamination based on methods and the detection techniques utilised. The application of these mitigation strategies and appropriate experimental design will allow for more accurate estimations on the level of microplastic and nanoplastic contamination within environmental samples.
近年来，随着塑料污染危机的不断升级，微塑料和纳米塑料的研究迅速增加。然而，缺乏优化的采样和样品处理方法可能会导致样品受到污染，从而高估环境样品中微塑料和纳米塑料的含量。对此，人们提出了一系列建议，但大多数建议尚未对污染来源进行量化或验证。在本研究中，我们调查了常见实验室操作中的塑料污染来源，包括水源（如超纯水）、耗材（如未灼烧的玻璃器皿）、气流（如通风橱）和灰尘。通过流式细胞术，我们确定水、气流和灰尘是主要的污染来源。与自来水相比，超纯水和反渗透水的污染最少。有趣的是，目前的建议是使用玻璃耗材代替塑料耗材，然而，我们发现玻璃器皿和玻璃耗材是一个重要的污染来源。目前的最佳做法是用铝箔覆盖玻璃管以减少空气传播的污染，但我们发现新鲜铝箔是一个重要的污染来源，这揭示了铝箔作为污染控制措施的局限性。最后，我们在实验室收集的灰尘中发现了大量的微塑料和纳米塑料，这表明这是一个广泛存在且被低估的污染来源。我们已经验证了耗材和常见实验室操作的污染来源，并据此提供了缓解策略。其他建议包括适当设计实验对照，以根据所使用的方法和检测技术量化引入的污染水平。应用这些缓解策略和适当的实验设计将有助于更准确地估计环境样品中微塑料和纳米塑料的污染水平。
