Yes, it could be (I posted the article about the gloves), but PFAS are different from microplastics, and not all the studies are contaminated by gloves.
The interesting part here is using the animals as “scientists” to collect samples in their habitats for years (2022-2024) instead of sending humans to collect samples. This is far more reliable in my opinion
The animal angle is fun and interesting, and my quip about the gloves is mostly a joke. My frustration comes from the fact that we don't (or shouldn't) need to know that PFAS is in Patagonia to care about it.
45% of US households contain PFAS, apparently, but no mitigation or even manufacturing bans are required for years.
In the US, one side cries about regular flouride in the water, but is meh to PFAS. Meanwhile, the other side is supposedly pro-environment, but can't even get the fortitude to ban PFAS ski wax.
The point for the lay reader is that the pollution has reached extremely remote places, so the stuff is absolutely pervasive and/or the method of travel should concern us.