(a) Failing to detect higher MW ions for PE is an indication of a false positive.(b) Using FTIR with low threshold matches increases the risk of false positives (by the way, FTIR only works on particles >10 µm, not nanoplastics).(c) Using microscopy without chemical confirmation of plastic particles and presenting images of unconfirmed plastics is a misleading application of the method.Altogether, these flaws render their results and conclusions fundamentally incorrect at best.

Dusan (Matt) Materic Thanks Dusan. That makes sense. Would it be feasible/worthwhile, to try to replicate their experiment with these three issues addressed? I assume, given Gauert et al's 2025 paper, the results would still be imperfect, even with their "best" method 3 for minimizing lipid issues, but it seems worth re-testing, as an approximation? Based on their comment in the paper "refinements to the analytical techniques, more complex study designs and much larger cohorts are needed" and their response to a comment on an earlier paper, perhaps they would be game to collaborate?https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/toxsci/kfae137/7829158 …more Like Celebrate Support Love Insightful Funny Like Reply Gabriel Enrique De la Torre • 3rd+ Microplastics | Plastic pollution | Antifouling paint particles 1w Dusan (Matt) Materic this pretty much summarizes it