![\"\"](\"https:\/\/hakaimagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/fiber1-plastic-misidentification-520x408.jpg\")
<\/a>\n\t\t\t<\/div><\/figure>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/hakaimagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/fiber2-plastic-misidentification-520x408.jpg\")
<\/a>\n\t\t\t<\/div><\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\nThe researchers collected a range of tiny microplastic fibers from the shellfish. Photos by Garth Covernton<\/span><\/p>\n One of Bendell\u2019s graduate students, Cassandra Murphy, also found high rates of plastic pollution in the region. In her recently completed doctoral thesis<\/a> investigating British Columbia\u2019s shellfish at sites along Vancouver Island, from Quadra Island to the Puget Sound, Murphy found between six and 650 pieces of microplastic per gram of shellfish\u2014the top end being higher than any previously reported levels. The DFO results work out to less than two particles per gram.<\/p>\n Dudas cannot account for the discrepancy, though it may be due to differences in technique. Murphy\u2019s research, Dudas notes, reports much smaller plastic particles than her team was comfortable identifying using their approach. Bendell notes that the amount of plastic might vary a lot even within short distances; it may be that the specific sites she and Murphy looked at simply had more plastic than the ones investigated by DFO.<\/p>\n But the most striking thing about the DFO research was how little of the contaminant material turned out to be plastic. When the DFO team sent samples to the Vancouver Aquarium for close chemical analysis, only six of the 27 fibers suspected to be microplastics were plastic. The rest turned out to be fibers such as cotton or rayon. \u201cIt all just looks like laundry lint under the microscope,\u201d says Dudas.<\/p>\n Pearce suspects other scientists may have mistaken nonplastic contaminants for plastic in their research. \u201cMost certainly, people have been visually identifying things as microplastics that are probably not,\u201d says Pearce.<\/p>\n There are other reasons scientists may be overestimating the extent of plastic pollution as well, he says. Some contaminants may be particles shed from researchers\u2019 clothing. In 2015, for example, a study found that<\/a> the synthetic particles supposedly found in German beer and honey were likely contaminants from the lab.<\/p>\n Bendell thinks more recent studies are likely more accurate. \u201cPeople are getting much better at this,\u201d she says. Murphy\u2019s study, in particular, found a lot of plastic microbeads, which are much easier to properly identify than fibers.<\/p>\n