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 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.
This could then "release particles onto the surface of the caps," it added.
Interesting but it’s not clear to me how the paint on the exterior of the caps is contaminating the liquid inside. Maybe the automated capping process looses paint particles from scraped caps into...
Interesting but it’s not clear to me how the paint on the exterior of the caps is contaminating the liquid inside.
Maybe the automated capping process looses paint particles from scraped caps into the air and some fall into the bottle before the cap is pressed on? lol any other ideas?
EDIT: wait I just realized the article might be talking about testing the containers/bottles themselves rather than the liquid inside? my reading comprehension may be waning
I've worked in food and beverage quality control for about 20 years, most of it in carbonated beverages in glass format. Essentially you are correct. "Cap dust" is a real thing that builds up on...
Exemplary
I've worked in food and beverage quality control for about 20 years, most of it in carbonated beverages in glass format. Essentially you are correct. "Cap dust" is a real thing that builds up on the equipment from the conveyance of the bottle closures via belt-on-a-track or air-in-a-tube. The "crown" style steel caps with the pointy fluted edges or the aluminum twist-offs with pilfer-proof banding are prone to make the dust because of their sharp points and edges. Regardless, as the caps await application to the bottle, they're being jostled around in a hopper (agitated to keep them flowing) which chips off the paint and clear-coat and creates a dust that inevitably has the potential to fall into the product. This doesn't even consider the dust that is already on the closures from the initial manufacturing... The only control (aside from using plain unadorned closures) is frequent and thorough cleaning, but that creates more downtime and cuts production efficiency which companies are loath to do, so some kind of balance must be found.
Cap dust....great. hopefully with studies like this they'll introduce more regulations to...I don't know, constantly be vacuuming it up? 60% reduction for 50x more is still great. (Only 20x more?)...
Cap dust....great. hopefully with studies like this they'll introduce more regulations to...I don't know, constantly be vacuuming it up?
The agency tested a cleaning method involving blowing the caps with air, then rinsing them with water and alcohol, which reduced contamination by 60%
60% reduction for 50x more is still great. (Only 20x more?)
With your decades of the experience, are there better/safer foods than others? What surprising thing did you stop consuming because you know about the quality control process now? Reverse: what food things are surprisingly healthy/safe?
It's more about the food safety culture of the company and line operators than any given food that makes it more or less safe, but that stuff is largely obscured from consumers. That being said,...
It's more about the food safety culture of the company and line operators than any given food that makes it more or less safe, but that stuff is largely obscured from consumers. That being said, romaine lettuce is surprisingly dirty because it's an 'open head', whereas cabbage and iceberg are better at excluding contamination due to their structure. I now eat more of them than I do romaine now.
Long recommendation short: Eat more stuff you make at home with as high a primary ingredient use rate as possible. This unfortunately requires more planning, time and effort, and in some cases cost, but it's the best way to mitigate all these subtle hazards.
So when the caps are stored in stacks, particles break off of the plastic-coated top and stick to the underside of the cap above.
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.
So when the caps are stored in stacks, particles break off of the plastic-coated top and stick to the underside of the cap above.
Caps aren't stored stacks (can lids are), they come in paper bags of 12 gross usually, in boxes of four bags (at least from CC&S, which makes the caps for 20% of all glass bottled beverages). But...
Caps aren't stored stacks (can lids are), they come in paper bags of 12 gross usually, in boxes of four bags (at least from CC&S, which makes the caps for 20% of all glass bottled beverages). But they are constantly jostled throughout the process and the flakes that are scraped off do land everywhere.
Depends on the style of caps. Wine bottle caps (screw caps) are stored in stacks. They are compressed onto the glass to create the threads. I’ve seen many wine bottling lines, and they are...
Depends on the style of caps. Wine bottle caps (screw caps) are stored in stacks. They are compressed onto the glass to create the threads. I’ve seen many wine bottling lines, and they are generally cleaner than what’s being described in this thread.
Yeah, that's what the article says too. I attribute it to much lower package/min rates than soda/beer (generally >2x bottle size difference), hence the ability to use caps packaged that way.
Yeah, that's what the article says too. I attribute it to much lower package/min rates than soda/beer (generally >2x bottle size difference), hence the ability to use caps packaged that way.
Thank you for the clarification. It sounds like that's actually significantly worse for microplastic contamination than if the they were stabilized more during shipping and application.
Thank you for the clarification. It sounds like that's actually significantly worse for microplastic contamination than if the they were stabilized more during shipping and application.
Funny, this was also mentioned in the most recent episode of the Iron Culture podcast. Interesting case on what something that may seem to intuitively make sense on the surface (we would think...
Funny, this was also mentioned in the most recent episode of the Iron Culture podcast.
Interesting case on what something that may seem to intuitively make sense on the surface (we would think glass bottles would be better than plastic, but guess not) does not actually match up with reality—and to be careful on what we are so certain must be true simply based on intuition.
I was genuinely wondering how to remove more microplastics in my life - and replacing my current re-usable bottles was on my mind. Though, of course, that's a bit different from the bottles used...
I was genuinely wondering how to remove more microplastics in my life - and replacing my current re-usable bottles was on my mind. Though, of course, that's a bit different from the bottles used in this study it shows that you can't just guess your way through things like that.
Even funnier, I actually did some quality checks (on germs though) for foodstuff in the past. And only now I'm actually thinking about the entire processes so much foodstuff (including drinks) go through, and... yeah.
Though in the end, tackling it by its source - actual production of plastics, as well as PFAS of course - is the best way to go with it.
From the article:
...
Interesting but it’s not clear to me how the paint on the exterior of the caps is contaminating the liquid inside.
Maybe the automated capping process looses paint particles from scraped caps into the air and some fall into the bottle before the cap is pressed on? lol any other ideas?
EDIT: wait I just realized the article might be talking about testing the containers/bottles themselves rather than the liquid inside? my reading comprehension may be waning
I've worked in food and beverage quality control for about 20 years, most of it in carbonated beverages in glass format. Essentially you are correct. "Cap dust" is a real thing that builds up on the equipment from the conveyance of the bottle closures via belt-on-a-track or air-in-a-tube. The "crown" style steel caps with the pointy fluted edges or the aluminum twist-offs with pilfer-proof banding are prone to make the dust because of their sharp points and edges. Regardless, as the caps await application to the bottle, they're being jostled around in a hopper (agitated to keep them flowing) which chips off the paint and clear-coat and creates a dust that inevitably has the potential to fall into the product. This doesn't even consider the dust that is already on the closures from the initial manufacturing... The only control (aside from using plain unadorned closures) is frequent and thorough cleaning, but that creates more downtime and cuts production efficiency which companies are loath to do, so some kind of balance must be found.
Cap dust....great. hopefully with studies like this they'll introduce more regulations to...I don't know, constantly be vacuuming it up?
60% reduction for 50x more is still great. (Only 20x more?)
With your decades of the experience, are there better/safer foods than others? What surprising thing did you stop consuming because you know about the quality control process now? Reverse: what food things are surprisingly healthy/safe?
It's more about the food safety culture of the company and line operators than any given food that makes it more or less safe, but that stuff is largely obscured from consumers. That being said, romaine lettuce is surprisingly dirty because it's an 'open head', whereas cabbage and iceberg are better at excluding contamination due to their structure. I now eat more of them than I do romaine now.
Long recommendation short: Eat more stuff you make at home with as high a primary ingredient use rate as possible. This unfortunately requires more planning, time and effort, and in some cases cost, but it's the best way to mitigate all these subtle hazards.
So when the caps are stored in stacks, particles break off of the plastic-coated top and stick to the underside of the cap above.
Caps aren't stored stacks (can lids are), they come in paper bags of 12 gross usually, in boxes of four bags (at least from CC&S, which makes the caps for 20% of all glass bottled beverages). But they are constantly jostled throughout the process and the flakes that are scraped off do land everywhere.
Depends on the style of caps. Wine bottle caps (screw caps) are stored in stacks. They are compressed onto the glass to create the threads. I’ve seen many wine bottling lines, and they are generally cleaner than what’s being described in this thread.
Yeah, that's what the article says too. I attribute it to much lower package/min rates than soda/beer (generally >2x bottle size difference), hence the ability to use caps packaged that way.
Thank you for the clarification. It sounds like that's actually significantly worse for microplastic contamination than if the they were stabilized more during shipping and application.
ah yes I can see that properly now. Ty for the picture
Funny, this was also mentioned in the most recent episode of the Iron Culture podcast.
Interesting case on what something that may seem to intuitively make sense on the surface (we would think glass bottles would be better than plastic, but guess not) does not actually match up with reality—and to be careful on what we are so certain must be true simply based on intuition.
I was genuinely wondering how to remove more microplastics in my life - and replacing my current re-usable bottles was on my mind. Though, of course, that's a bit different from the bottles used in this study it shows that you can't just guess your way through things like that.
Even funnier, I actually did some quality checks (on germs though) for foodstuff in the past. And only now I'm actually thinking about the entire processes so much foodstuff (including drinks) go through, and... yeah.
Though in the end, tackling it by its source - actual production of plastics, as well as PFAS of course - is the best way to go with it.