The institute said those figures support the possibility that CBA3656 reacted with nanoplastics in the intestine and promoted their excretion from the body, thus exhibiting high nanoplastic biosorption efficiency.
Essentially “we see a lot more nanoplastics freely moving around instead of embedded where they’re hard to measure.”
Normal scientific asterisks are in play: this was bacteria isolated from kimchi, not kimchi itself. For all I know, kimchi could introduce more nanoplastics than the bacteria remove. The bacteria could also not have the same behavior when they’re on kimchi and have other things to eat. There isn’t much information on the process used, so it could be that the samples they used were contaminated with nanoplastic and that’s why they saw more. This was also published by “The World Institute of Kimchi”. Not that they couldn’t find a real effect, just that this isn’t remotely unbiased.
The next paragraph in the article is:
Essentially “we see a lot more nanoplastics freely moving around instead of embedded where they’re hard to measure.”
Normal scientific asterisks are in play: this was bacteria isolated from kimchi, not kimchi itself. For all I know, kimchi could introduce more nanoplastics than the bacteria remove. The bacteria could also not have the same behavior when they’re on kimchi and have other things to eat. There isn’t much information on the process used, so it could be that the samples they used were contaminated with nanoplastic and that’s why they saw more. This was also published by “The World Institute of Kimchi”. Not that they couldn’t find a real effect, just that this isn’t remotely unbiased.