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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Not plastic caps, plastic paint. The printing on bottlecaps is a polymer and it gets scuffed.
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)
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.