A preliminary Malaysian honey survey compared microscopically classified particles between stingless-bee and honey-bee samples and confirmed polyethylene in selected particles.
Source details
Yusof Shuaib Ibrahim, Muhammad Naim Rosazan, Muhammad Izzelen Izzauddin Mamat, Sabiqah Tuan Anuar, Wahizatul Afzan Azmi. Biodiversitas. 2025.
Findings
A preliminary Malaysian honey survey compared microscopically classified particles between stingless-bee and honey-bee samples and confirmed polyethylene in selected particles.
Scroll horizontally for methods and limitations.
| Endpoint | Source-reported result | Locator |
|---|---|---|
| Heterotrigona itama honey | 8.18 ± 2.57 microscopy-classified MPs/g | PDF p. 4 Table 1; p. 3 results |
| Apis mellifera honey | 5.52 ± 1.13 microscopy-classified MPs/g | PDF p. 4 Table 1; p. 3 results |
| Honey particle subsample | six selected particles | PDF p. 4 FTIR results |
| Heterotrigona itama honey | 1.100 ± 0.653 mm | PDF p. 4 results |
Methods and scope
Twelve honeys, six from each bee species, were digested in triplicate from 10 g portions with hydrogen peroxide after dilution and filtered onto 1.2 µm glass filters. Stereomicroscopy classified and counted objects. Hot-needle testing, SEM, and FTIR were applied to selected objects. Only six objects could be identified by FTIR, all PE. Equipment/solutions were rinsed/filtered, samples covered, airborne blank filter used, and closed room with air filtration reported. Numerical blank counts/subtraction and polymer-specific recovery are not reported in inspected methods/results.
What this source can support
Supports paper-reported microscopy-based counts and PE presence in the selected objects. Whole-count polymer identity and an absence of natural fibers are not established.
Preliminary selection of farm/store honey. Chemical confirmation of only six selected particles; visually classified fibers dominate and cannot all be labeled chemically confirmed PE. Abstract size range differs from results bins and Table 1 means; use results/table-specific size context only. Blank filter mentioned without numerical blank results or correction. Species comparison does not isolate environment, processing, or packaging as cause.
Related evidence
Reported values and source locations
| Reported value | Measurement basis | Conditions and size context | Original document location |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8.18 ± 2.57 microscopy-classified MPs/g | Mean ± SD | Malaysian farm/store honey; triplicate digests of each honey sample Results categories <0.3, 0.3-0.5, 0.5-1.0, 1.0-5.0 mm; 1.2 µm filter pore is not detection floor | PDF p. 4 Table 1; p. 3 results |
| 5.52 ± 1.13 microscopy-classified MPs/g | Mean ± SD | Malaysian farm/store honey; triplicate digests of each honey sample Results categories <0.3, 0.3-0.5, 0.5-1.0, 1.0-5.0 mm; 1.2 µm filter pore is not detection floor | PDF p. 4 Table 1; p. 3 results |
| six selected particles | Count of chemically identified particles | Random selection constrained by size for FTIR after microscopy and hot-needle screening Selection constrained by particle size; no validation for all visually counted objects | PDF p. 4 FTIR results |
| 1.100 ± 0.653 mm | Mean ± reported spread (text does not label SD at this sentence) | Microscopic particle dimensions in stingless-bee honey Results classified in bins extending below 0.3 mm and up to 5 mm; abstract range differs | PDF p. 4 results |
Source provenance
Primary PDF SHA-256: e90dfcc638313ae1de894b1fd8b46438a57e7c347590fef1575f6e533d3b3b96
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.