A market-based study examined plastic fragments in chicken and fish cut on plastic boards, comparing material chemistry and a limited washing experiment.
Source details
Rana Zeeshan Habib, Ruwaya Al Kindi, Feras Al Salem, Wajeeh Faris Kittaneh, Vijo Poulose, Syed Haris Iftikhar, Abdel-Hamid Ismail Mourad, Thies Thiemann. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022.
Findings
A market-based study examined plastic fragments in chicken and fish cut on plastic boards, comparing material chemistry and a limited washing experiment.
Scroll horizontally for methods and limitations.
| Endpoint | Source-reported result | Locator |
|---|---|---|
| Chicken cut in a UAE shop | 1.19 ± 0.72 pieces/g of food | PDF p. 6 Table 1 |
| Chicken sample C2 | 23.7 to 1454.5 µm | PDF p. 6 Table 1; p. 4 methods |
| King mackerel F6 | 1.17 ± 0.57 pieces/g of food | PDF p. 6 Table 2 |
| Washed king mackerel F6A | 0.03 ± 0.03 pieces/g of food | PDF p. 6 Table 2 and washing paragraph |
Methods and scope
Meat digested with aqueous KOH, filtered and washed; microscopy/ImageJ assessed counts and Feret dimensions. FTIR of recovered material and board filings identified polyethylene; DSC/density supported LDPE board assignment. Triplicate subsamples. Equipment/filter inspections, cleaned surfaces, cotton coats, tested sample bags and parallel blanks reported; numerical blank results and recovery correction not supplied in inspected main text.
What this source can support
Direct evidence consistent with mechanical transfer from boards in the sampled shops. Counts per gram of sampled food cannot be recast as particles per knife stroke, board lifetime, or typical household serving.
Single primary study in this folder, few vendor samples, nonrandom market observations and different food-cutting conditions. Color/polymer correspondence supports attribution but does not provide a universal wear rate. Table 1 C2 count differs from attribution in surrounding text; Table 1 used explicitly. Other table/text inconsistencies exist; no pooled category range or mechanical-wear mass converted to intake. Filter pore is not analytical detection floor. No human health outcomes.
Related evidence
Reported values and source locations
| Reported value | Measurement basis | Conditions and size context | Original document location |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.19 ± 0.72 pieces/g of food | Mean ± SD | Shop-cut chicken C2, white board, triplicate digested subsamples 23.7-1454.5 µm sample C2 observed range | PDF p. 6 Table 1 |
| 23.7 to 1454.5 µm | Observed sample range | Chicken C2 particles measured by Feret diameter Observed Feret range, no validated analytical floor | PDF p. 6 Table 1; p. 4 methods |
| 1.17 ± 0.57 pieces/g of food | Mean ± SD | Shop-cut king mackerel F6 before washing 51.8-503.5 µm observed F6 range | PDF p. 6 Table 2 |
| 0.03 ± 0.03 pieces/g of food | Mean ± SD | Same king mackerel F6A after 1 minute under tap water, about 5 L used 89.7-737 µm observed F6A range | PDF p. 6 Table 2 and washing paragraph |
Source provenance
Primary PDF SHA-256: 06b18fa11037381a24db74a3a8470ae1520001dab0f8cd2c6ad506334aa280c6
The source record identifies the scope and limits of the primary-document review. Follow the DOI or official source link for the original document; this site does not redistribute the PDF.