this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2025
379 points (93.4% liked)

science

19943 readers
463 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The researchers found an average of around 100 microplastic particles per liter in glass bottles of soft drinks, lemonade, iced tea and beer. That was five to 50 times higher than the rate detected in plastic bottles or metal cans.

"We expected the opposite result," Ph.D. student Iseline Chaib, who conducted the research, told AFP.

"We then noticed that in the glass, the particles emerging from the samples were the same shape, color and polymer composition—so therefore the same plastic—as the paint on the outside of the caps that seal the glass bottles," she said.

The paint on the caps also had "tiny scratches, invisible to the naked eye, probably due to friction between the caps when there were stored," the agency said in a statement.

This could then "release particles onto the surface of the caps," it added.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bosht@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago (14 children)

Man on the surface this reeks of inside payoffs. I guess the technicality is plastic caps on glass bottles?? Which seems weird and nothing I've ever seen. Unless they're referencing the seal on the inside of some metal caps on glass bottles? Either way, seems suspect. I'd assume that overall drinking from glass is safer, as with plastic on any timeline you're dealing with the plastic breaking down and leaching chemicals and micro plastics into the liquid, which wouldn't be an issue with glass.

[–] Infinite@lemmy.zip 49 points 1 week ago (11 children)

Not plastic caps, plastic paint. The printing on bottlecaps is a polymer and it gets scuffed.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Odd. I would have thought that the paint, being on the exterior, wouldn't leak into the beverage contained inside the glass.

But apparently, they found that blowing air over the caps reduced the amount of detected contamination by 60 per cent. So it seems like an easy fix that manufacturers can implement inexpensively (literally just an electric fan)

[–] scrion@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Unfortunately, it's probably not going to be an electric fan, but compressed air. Even more unfortunately, compressed air turns out to be a major cost factor due to the cost of running compressors, which might prevent adoption.

The original paper mentions blowing the caps out with an "air bomb", which I'm pretty sure is a mistranslation stemming from the French term "Bombe d’Air Comprimé", i. e. an air duster, a can of compressed air. In an industrial setting, you'd use a compressor for this, naturally.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)