Evidence Hub

Comment on: “Microplastic presence in dog and human testis and its potential association with sperm count and weights of testis and epididymis”

Rao M. Uppu, Ir Willie Peijnenburg, Sean M. Hays

Toxicological Sciences, 2024

3 citations

Abstract

The manuscript by Hu and coauthors provides what they claim is the presence of microplastic in dog and human testis. We respectfully raise issues with the conclusions drawn because it is our opinion that the analytical approach used is not robust enough to support these claims. We respectfully request the authors consider the following key concerns with this study. First, there are no details on background contamination levels for sample collection, handling, and laboratory processing such as conducting sample blank(s), negative controls (e.g. procedural blanks), positive controls (e.g. spike-recovery), background controls (e.g. fume hood and laboratory spaces) tests, and their method detection and quantification limits (LOD/LOQ) to assess data accuracy (Hermsen et al., 2018; Brander et al. 2020). Without rigorous quality assurance and quality control, the risk of errors, contamination, or inaccuracies is increased and of unknown impact (Brander et al., 2020). Regarding sample collection and handling, insufficient details are provided on collection methods, storage conditions, and homogenization protocols. Potential contamination during surgical collection is not addressed, and long-term storage effects (up to 7 years for human samples) on sample integrity are not discussed. Without reporting any results for controls, one cannot assess whether the concentrations of microplastics reported for samples are real or not. They are a complete uncertainty and no way of knowing if…

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free