The average liter of bottled water contains about 240,000 plastic particles from seven types of plastics, with nanoplastics making up nearly a quarter million fragments.
These particles can potentially gum up the machinery of human cells and cause harm to key systems in the body.
Bottled water has been found to contain thousands of nanoplastics, which are so small they cannot be seen under a microscope. These particles can potentially gum up the machinery of human cells and cause harm to key systems in the body. The average liter of bottled water contains about 240,000 plastic particles from seven types of plastics, with nanoplastics making up nearly a quarter million fragments. This study raises concerns about the safety and health implications of consuming bottled water.
Bottled water sold in stores can contain 10 to 100 times more nanoparticles than previously estimated. These particles are so small they cannot be seen under a microscope.
One liter of bottled water contains an average of 240,000 plastic particles from seven types of plastics. Of these, 95% are identified as nanoplastics and the rest are microplastics.
Drinking tap water from glass or stainless steel containers reduces exposure to harmful chemicals in bottled water.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that bottled water sold in stores can contain 10 to 100 times more bits of plastic than previously estimated nanoparticles so infinitesimally tiny they cannot be seen under a microscope.
The article states that one liter of water contained an average of 240,000 plastic particles from seven types of plastics. However, the author does not provide any evidence to support this claim.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of experts without providing any evidence or context for their claims. Additionally, the author presents a dichotomy between tap water and bottled water as if they are mutually exclusive when in fact both can contain harmful substances.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Sandee LaMotte and she has a history of writing articles that are biased against plastic. In this article, she presents information about a study that found bottled water contains nanoplastics which can be harmful to human health. The author uses language such as 'infinitesimally tiny' and 'potentially harmful synthetic chemicals' to create an emotional response in the reader rather than presenting factual information. Additionally, the author quotes Sherri Mason who has a history of advocating against plastic and is likely biased towards this topic.
CNN — In a trailblazing new study, researchers have discovered bottled water sold in stores can contain 10 to 100 times more bits of plastic than previously estimated — nanoparticles so infinitesimally tiny they cannot be seen under a microscope.
One liter of water — the equivalent of two standard-size bottled waters — contained an average of 240,000 plastic particles from seven types of plastics, of which 90% were identified as nanoplastics and the rest were microplastics.
The new finding reinforces long-held expert advice to drink tap water from glass or stainless steel containers to reduce exposure.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest with the topic 'nanoplastics' as they are reporting on research conducted by their employer, Penn State Behrend. The author also mentions that synthetic chemicals may be present in bottled water which could further exacerbate this conflict.
The article reports on a study conducted by the author’s employer, Penn State Behrend.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of bottled water as they are reporting for CNN which is a company that produces and sells bottled water.
People swallow hundreds of thousands of microscopic pieces of plastic each time they drink a liter of bottled water.
The average liter of bottled water contains about 240,000 particles, most of which are nanoplastics.
Nanoplastics pose a greater threat to human health than microplastics.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that people are swallowing hundreds of thousands of microscopic pieces of plastic each time they drink a liter of bottled water. However, this statement is misleading as the number mentioned is not accurate and exaggerated for effect.
The article claims that people are swallowing hundreds of thousands of microplastics when drinking bottled water. This claim is false as it has been proven in previous studies that humans do not consume such large amounts of plastic through their daily activities.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the findings of a scientific study without providing any context or explanation for why this study is relevant or reliable. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when they describe microplastics as being harmful and dangerous to human health, even though there isn't enough evidence to support this claim. The article also contains an example of a dichotomous depiction by describing nanoplastics as being more dangerous than microplastics, without providing any evidence or explanation for why this is the case.
The author uses an appeal to authority when they cite the findings of a scientific study without providing any context or explanation for why this study is relevant or reliable. For example, they say 'Scientists have found about 240,000 particles in the average liter of bottled water' but do not provide any information on how these scientists arrived at this conclusion.
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when they describe microplastics as being harmful and dangerous to human health. For example, they say 'Microplastics are also in the food we eat and the water we drink: In 2018, scientists discovered that a single bottle of water contained, on average, 325 pieces of microplastics.' but do not provide any evidence to support this claim.
The author uses dichotomous depiction by describing nanoplastics as being more dangerous than microplastics. For example, they say 'Whatever microplastic is doing to human health, I will say nanoplastics are going to be more dangerous' but do not provide any evidence or explanation for why this is the case.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Shannon Osaka has a conflict of interest on the topic of bottled water and its health effects due to her affiliation with Columbia University. The article also mentions Wei Min and Naixin Qian who are researchers at Columbia University.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Shannon Osaka has a conflict of interest on the topic of bottled water and its health effects due to her affiliation with Columbia University. The article also mentions Wei Min and Naixin Qian who are researchers at Columbia University.
The average bottle of water contains nearly a quarter million fragments of nanoplastics.
Micro- and nanoplastics have been found to have a wide array of dangerous impacts on key systems in the human body.
One liter of bottled water contains an average of 240,000 plastic particles from seven types of plastics.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(90%)
The article contains a statement that is deceptive by omission. The author states that the average bottle of water contains nearly a quarter million fragments of nanoplastics but fails to mention that these particles are thousands of times smaller than microplastics which have already been found to be harmful.
The article claims that the average bottle of water contains nearly a quarter million fragments of nanoplastics. However, it does not provide any context or comparison with other sources such as tap water or food products.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article discusses the potential dangers of nanoplastics found in bottled water. The author provides examples of different types of plastics that were identified in the bottles and explains how they can potentially harm human health. However, there is no clear evidence presented to support these claims.
Bias
(85%)
The article discusses the presence of nanoplastics in bottled water. The author states that these particles are smaller than microplastics and can potentially gum up human cells. They also mention that both micro- and nanoplastics have been found to have a wide array of dangerous impacts on key systems in the human body, including oxidative stress, inflammation, immune dysfunction, altered biochemical and energy metabolism, impaired cell proliferation, disrupted microbial metabolic pathways and abnormal organ development. The article also mentions that there is a lack of knowledge about what plastic polymers people are actually ingesting in these bottles to determine the danger level of exposure.
Both micro- and nanoplastics have been found to have a wide array of dangerous impacts on key systems in the human body
The presence of nanoplastics in bottled water can potentially gum up human cells
There is a lack of knowledge about what plastic polymers people are actually ingesting in these bottles
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Saul Elbein has a conflict of interest on the topic of bottled water as he is reporting for The Hill which is owned by News Corporation. This company also owns Nestle, one of the largest producers and sellers of bottled water in the world.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Saul Elbein has a conflict of interest on the topic of bottled water as he is reporting for The Hill which is owned by News Corporation. This company also owns Nestle Waters North America, one of the largest producers and distributors of bottled water in the world.
Saul Elbein reports for The Hill which is owned by News Corporation.
Micro-nano plastics originating from the prevalent usage of plastics have raised increasingly alarming concerns worldwide.
There remains a fundamental knowledge gap in nanoplastics because of the lack of effective analytical techniques.
This study developed a powerful optical imaging technique for rapid analysis of nanoparticles with unprecedented sensitivity and specificity.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that there is a knowledge gap on nanoplastics due to the lack of effective analytical techniques. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence or references provided in the article. Secondly, the author uses sensational language such as 'omnipresent', 'toxic' and 'mysterious nanoworld surrounding us' to create a sense of urgency and alarm without providing any concrete data or statistics to back up these claims. Thirdly, the author quotes several studies that have been published in reputable scientific journals but does not provide any details on how they were conducted or what their findings were. This makes it difficult for readers to evaluate the credibility of these sources.
The author quotes several studies that have been published in reputable scientific journals but does not provide any details on how they were conducted or what their findings were. This makes it difficult for readers to evaluate the credibility of these sources.
The statement 'There remains a fundamental knowledge gap in nanoplastics because of the lack of effective analytical techniques.' is deceptive as there are several existing methods available for detecting and analyzing nanoplastics.
The use of sensational language such as 'omnipresent', 'toxic' and 'mysterious nanoworld surrounding us' creates a sense of urgency without providing any concrete data or statistics to back up these claims.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that there is a knowledge gap in nanoplastics due to the lack of effective analytical techniques. However, this statement does not provide any evidence or data to support it. Secondly, the author makes a false dilemma by implying that detecting nanoplastics imposes tremendous analytical challenges on both sensitivity and specificity when there may be other methods available for detection. Thirdly, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating that nanoplastics are more toxic than microplastics without providing any evidence to support this claim.
The article contains several fallacies.
Bias
(85%)
The author has a clear bias towards the topic of nanoplastics and their potential harm to human health. The language used in the article is highly sensationalized and alarmist, with phrases such as 'raising increasingly alarming concerns worldwide' and 'believed to be more toxic'. Additionally, there are several examples throughout the article where specific claims about nanoplastics are made without providing any evidence or context for these claims. For example, the author states that microplastics and possibly even nanoplastics have recently raised health concerns but does not provide any information on what these health concerns might be or how they were determined.
The existence of microplastics (1 µm to 5 mm in length) and possibly even nanoplastics (μm) has recently raised health concerns.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest with the topic 'nanoplastics' as they are an Editorial Board Member at University of California, Irvine. The site also has a financial tie to Eric O. Potma who is listed as one of the authors on this study.
Eric O. Potma, one of the authors listed on this study has financial ties with the site.
The author Wei Min is an Editorial Board Member at University of California, Irvine which may have a vested interest in the topic 'nanoplastics'.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of nanoplastics and microplastics as they are associated with health concerns and toxicity. The article mentions that the authors have previously published research related to this topic.
