Scientists Shocked To Find Lab Gloves May Be Skewing Microplastics Data (sciencedaily.com)
(Tuesday March 31, 2026 @03:00AM (BeauHD)
from the false-positives dept.)
- Reference: 0181189588
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/26/03/31/0421252/scientists-shocked-to-find-lab-gloves-may-be-skewing-microplastics-data
- Source link: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260329222938.htm
Researchers found that common nitrile and latex lab gloves [1]can shed stearate particles that closely resemble microplastics , potentially "increasing the risk of false positives when studying microplastic pollution," reports ScienceDaily.
"We may be overestimating microplastics, but there should be none," said Anne McNeil, senior author of the study and U-M professor of chemistry, macromolecular science and engineering. "There's still a lot out there, and that's the problem." From the report:
> Researchers found that these gloves can unintentionally transfer particles onto lab tools used to analyze air, water, and other environmental samples. The contamination comes from stearates, which are not plastics but can closely resemble them during testing. Because of this, scientists may be detecting particles that are not true microplastics. To reduce this issue, U-M researchers Madeline Clough and Anne McNeil recommend using cleanroom gloves, which release far fewer particles.
>
> Stearates are salt-based, soap-like substances added to disposable gloves to help them separate easily from molds during manufacturing. However, their chemical similarity to certain plastics makes them difficult to distinguish in lab analyses, increasing the risk of false positives when studying microplastic pollution.
"For microplastics researchers who have these impacted datasets, there's still hope to recover them and find a true quantity of microplastics," said researcher and recent doctoral graduate Madeline Clough. "This field is very challenging to work in because there's plastic everywhere," McNeil said. "But that's why we need chemists and people who understand chemical structure to be working in this field."
The findings have been [2]published in the journal Analytical Methods .
[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260329222938.htm
[2] http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D5AY01801C
"We may be overestimating microplastics, but there should be none," said Anne McNeil, senior author of the study and U-M professor of chemistry, macromolecular science and engineering. "There's still a lot out there, and that's the problem." From the report:
> Researchers found that these gloves can unintentionally transfer particles onto lab tools used to analyze air, water, and other environmental samples. The contamination comes from stearates, which are not plastics but can closely resemble them during testing. Because of this, scientists may be detecting particles that are not true microplastics. To reduce this issue, U-M researchers Madeline Clough and Anne McNeil recommend using cleanroom gloves, which release far fewer particles.
>
> Stearates are salt-based, soap-like substances added to disposable gloves to help them separate easily from molds during manufacturing. However, their chemical similarity to certain plastics makes them difficult to distinguish in lab analyses, increasing the risk of false positives when studying microplastic pollution.
"For microplastics researchers who have these impacted datasets, there's still hope to recover them and find a true quantity of microplastics," said researcher and recent doctoral graduate Madeline Clough. "This field is very challenging to work in because there's plastic everywhere," McNeil said. "But that's why we need chemists and people who understand chemical structure to be working in this field."
The findings have been [2]published in the journal Analytical Methods .
[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260329222938.htm
[2] http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D5AY01801C
And media selection of alarmist data (Score:2)
by quenda ( 644621 )
Its like it does not matter how bad the reality of climate change is, the media will report the guy who says its even worse.
Then maybe the extreme prediction is debunked, so people stop worrying, when the reality is still very bad.
Are microplastics bad like asbestos, or just the latest in a long line of scares of the day, like aluminium saucepans or cholesterol?
Re: (Score:2)
by thegarbz ( 1787294 )
It sounds very much like you spend all your time reading The Daily Mail. In reality the "media" report on a very wide variety of results from a wide variety of people. Maybe a diet of less shock news can set you straight.
Re:Latex schmubs (Score:4, Informative)
Look they don't say thay the microplastics are all from their gloves, they just say that their estimate might have been skewed by the gloves ie "plz be aware the tour result maey need more sctutany" . No need to trow all their results out at ones
Re: Latex schmubs (Score:2)
Actually - there is a very valid reason to throw previous results out of the window. In science, a contaminated sample completely invalidates the result. You can't rely on any findings built on false premises.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that you don't believe the outcome because you incorrectly sumarised it in your head? That you don't believe the outcome because you didn't read TFS or TFA properly? Or that you just ignore everything and make up your own answers to suit what you think people were studying?