Read on Twitter
The @AmerChemSociety press release on the " #microplastic in human organs" study is an example of how not to do science communication. Omitting critical details and seriously overselling (or misinterpreting) the work.
https://bit.ly/3kXSJiO
A thread.
1/
https://bit.ly/3kXSJiO
A thread.
1/
It started with a #microplastic article https://bit.ly/3iNuthv whose take-home message was entirely revised after publication https://bit.ly/31cki0e .
From " #microplastic particles found in humans" to " #microplastic particles now discoverable in humans".
Huge difference.
2/
From " #microplastic particles found in humans" to " #microplastic particles now discoverable in humans".
Huge difference.
2/
The press release now suddenly talks about two separate experiments:
The first experiment is a method development study, in order to shed light on the question: how can we detect #microplastics in human organs?
3/
The first experiment is a method development study, in order to shed light on the question: how can we detect #microplastics in human organs?
3/
The authors dumped "nano/microplastic beads" on the samples, and then retrieved them.
Not sufficiently helpful.
- Which particles (size, composition) were used?
- Which amounts were used?
- How did they embed the particles into the organs?
- Which percentage was retrieved?
4/
Not sufficiently helpful.
- Which particles (size, composition) were used?
- Which amounts were used?
- How did they embed the particles into the organs?
- Which percentage was retrieved?
4/
The second experiment: the authors used mass spectrometry to measure a range of chemicals in the tissues. Which is certainly nothing new, but always provides another piece of the puzzle "what's our chemical body burden?".
5/
5/
But there is absolutely no link to the micro/nanoplastic issue any more.
And, again, the press release is annoyingly vague.
- Which chemicals were analyzed?
- Which concentrations were found?
- How did the authors estimate where the compounds come from?
6/
And, again, the press release is annoyingly vague.
- Which chemicals were analyzed?
- Which concentrations were found?
- How did the authors estimate where the compounds come from?
6/
The only compound mentioned is Bisphenol A (BPA), of which we already know that we all carry it in us. It is still used in a lot of (food) packaging material, from which it leaches into food. Which is the main exposure pathway for humans.
7/
7/
The authors then conclude that "our study provides the first clues on potential micro- and nanoplastic exposure sources and routes."
It is completely beyond me, how they come up with that conclusion, given that they haven't measured micro- and nanoplastic exposure at all.
8/
It is completely beyond me, how they come up with that conclusion, given that they haven't measured micro- and nanoplastic exposure at all.
8/
Honestly, this turned into a "how NOT to do science communication" exercise. A research area that is almost overhyped (at least: it certainly is very much discussed in the press & social media) and writing about entirely unpublished work is a recipe for disaster.
Done.
9/9.
Done.
9/9.
