close icon
GENERAL
RELATIONS
image

Microfibres, Macro Problem.

Microfibres: overlooked and unregulated

What is microfibre pollution?

Our clothes are the source of an invisible problem. In every machine load of washing, up to 700,000 microfibres are emitted into wastewater1. With over 840 million washing machines used globally, that’s more than half a million tonnes2 of microfibres entering the world’s oceans every year.

But what is a microfibre and why should we be concerned?

Microscopic in size and persistent in nature, microfibres are now the most prevalent type of microplastics found in our waters and sediment3. Defined as smaller than 5mm in length and often invisible to the eye, a microfibre is a tiny ‘thread’ shed from our clothing. They come from both natural (cellulosic/protein) and synthetic (plastic) materials and every type of clothing sheds them to some degree or another.

They have been found in some of the earth’s most pristine locations, evident at the bottom of the ocean’s deepest trenches4 and on top of the most remote mountain ranges 5. Microplastics have even been discovered in human lung tissue, placenta and blood 6 and enter our ecosystems through water, air and soil.

Synthetic textiles now represent 35% of all primary microplastics entering the oceans .7 Everyday acts such as cleaning and wearing our clothes can cause microfibre shedding. But fibres are shed from textiles and clothing at all stages of the garment lifecycle, including production, consumer use, and end-of-life. In recent years the quantity of fibres being shed in washing machines has been the focus of a number of scientific studies and it is now estimated that plastic microfibres entering the ocean between 2015 and 2050 could amass to an excess of 22 million tonnes8. To put it in perspective, that’s the equivalent of 50 billion plastic bottles9.

 

The fast fashion industry is perpetuating the problem

 

The quantity of cheap synthetic clothing being produced has more than doubled in the past two decades with companies moving towards a business model supported by synthetic, fossil fuel-based textiles, like nylon and polyester. This business models allows fast fashion companies to mass produce large volumes of low-cost, disposable fashion, bringing inexpensive garment styles to the end consumer.

It’s estimated that 69% of fibres used in clothing are synthetic, and that by 2030 synthetic fibres are predicted to represent 73% of all fibre production.10 This is the equivalent of 101 million tonnes11, or 2 trillion, 2-litre drinks bottles12. Synthetic microfibres can take hundreds of years to decompose, breaking down into nano plastics so small they are barely visible under a microscope.13 These nano plastics infiltrate every corner of our ecosystems, persisting in our environment for an extraordinarily long time.

 

However, it’s not just synthetic fibres that have a detrimental impact. All clothes shed microfibres whether natural or synthetic. It is a common misconception that natural fibres are a more environmentally friendly replacement for synthetic fibres since they are biodegradable. This in theory could be true, but in reality, dyes and finishes used in the production process alter the normal degradation properties of natural fibres preventing them from breaking down. Both synthetic and natural microfibres are also believed to be carriers of harmful pathogens and bacteria which can leach from the fibres posing a potential threat to human and animal health14. Simply substituting synthetic fibres with natural ones is not a solution.

We believe preventing any kind of microfibres entering our environment is crucial. While addressing clothing overproduction and overconsumption is one of the most significant long-term solutions to the microfibre problem, the installation of microfibre filters to laundering appliances, presents itself as a readily available and effective near-term solution. This could, for now, be used in combination with developing upstream practices to slow the overall release of this pervasive source of plastic pollution.

 

Increasing research into microplastics and human health issues

 

Since 2018, there has been a significant increase of studies investigating the impact of microplastics on human health, with many new findings making headlines in mainstream media. Studies on humans have shown the presence of microplastics deep in lung tissue, stool, stomachs, blood, placenta and even breast milk15.

According to the first study to estimate human ingestion of plastic pollution, the average person eats at least 50,000 particles of microplastic a year16, with microplastics present in a wide variety of our food. They accumulate in water, soil and air making their way up the food chain and into our bodies.

Although it is still widely unknown what the long-term implications of microplastics will have on human health, emerging studies have revealed notable findings. Recent research shows significant damage to human cells, including both allergic reactions and cell death17. While other studies have suggested microplastics act as endocrine disruptors, an issue which has been linked to having an adverse effect on male reproduction and declining fertility rates18.  Microfibres are often produced with a combination of chemicals which can pose a toxicity risk19, the full impact of which is still largely ambiguous.

 

Microfibres accumulate in water, soil, air and rain

 

The rising number of microfibres entering our oceans makes ingestion almost inescapable for both humans and marine life. Microscopic plastic particles have now been found to accumulate in the gills, liver and gastrointestinal tracts of aquatic organisms such as fish and shellfish20. As well as being found in fresh drinking water and Antarctic snow21 Studies show that the presence of microplastics can have a toxic effect on fish and other aquatic life, reducing food intake, delaying growth, causing oxidative damage and abnormal behaviour22. The potential adverse effects to marine life could destabilise the structure and function of the entire ecosystem.

In many locations globally, including the UK, US and various parts of Europe, Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) are put in place to reduce water pollution. The purpose of these plants is to remove contaminants from sewage water and provide an effluent that is suitable for redistribution into the environment. However, there is new evidence suggesting that even fine mesh filters in WWTPs are not able to filter out microfibres23. The fibre-shaped particles in wastewater effluent may be more mobile than other microfibre particles due to their long thin shape and continue to make their way into our waters. One study traced microfibre particles from a Swedish WWTP into the sea through the effluent pipe. The study found that while all microplastic shapes were represented equally at the plant, only fibre shaped particles were present in seawater samples near the pipe outlet24.

Further studies indicate that WWTPs are also responsible for the accumulation of microfibres and microplastics in soil. In many countries, including the UK, sewage sludge captured by WWTPs is recycled to agricultural land as nutrient-rich, organic manure25. Although sewage sludge is carefully managed and monitored, new evidence suggests that much of the recycled sludge on agricultural land contains concentrated levels of microplastics.26

Microplastics and microfibres can also be inhaled through the air that we breathe. All textiles including household items like rugs, throws, cushions and bedding can release microfibres into the air simply through use and can be inhaled into our bodies. One Dutch study has linked the presence of microplastics in human lung tissue to the lung’s ability to repair themselves.27 It is suggested that the presence of microplastics in the lungs causes inflammation,28 something known to be a leading cause of cancer, heart disease and asthma.29

The presence of microfibres in our soil, water and air is exacerbated through weather patterns. One US study researched rainfall in 11 conservation areas across the US and found over 1,000 tonnes of microplastic fell on the 11 protected areas annually.30 It’s evident that microplastics are not static, they circulate around the globe in natural water cycles and precipitation. Fluidly travelling through our ecosystems. Considering the potential health concerns, environmental contamination and the numerous routes in which microfibres reach us, there has never been a better time for action.

 

Legislation and innovation offer an immediate solution

 

Globally, there are no shortages of visionaries or innovators, but when it comes to any kind of change on a systemic level, things can take time. Technology alone will not bring about the transformative change we need and the majority of global initiatives around microplastics currently lack both momentum and scale.

Legislators across the globe have a responsibility to recognise and react to issues facing our planet. Given the potential risks of microfibre pollution, we need to see more decisive and radical action.

Informative labelling, taxation on virgin plastics, investment in material development and regulations for improved wastewater and sewage sludge treatment are all ways in which legislation can have an impact on microfibre pollution. One of the most effective near-term solutions would be to mandate for washing machine filters. Integrated filtration technology is readily available and could be quickly implemented on a global scale.

France have an ambitious policy agenda and have been leading in environmental legislation. In 2020, they became the first country in history to pass microfibre legislation. The bill, passed by Brune Poirson, French Secretary of State for the Ecological and Inclusive Transition, requires all new domestic washing machines to include filtration devices from 2025. With over 2.85 million washing machines sold in France each year31 this legislation will prevent millions of microfibres entering our oceans.

Momentum is slowly building elsewhere too. The EU, UK, Sweden and California all have microfibre pollution on the political agenda. While they recognise the need for filtration technology, they have not introduced any legal measures as of yet.

In the UK, an All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) was formed in 2020 tasked specifically with addressing the microplastic issue. The first report from the APPG on Microplastics was published in September 2021, titled ‘Microplastic Policies for the Government’. Which made a series of recommendations designed to mitigate microfibre release in British waters. Much like the 2020 bill passed in France, the recommendations suggested that by 2025, all new commercial and domestic washing machines should be fitted with microfibre filtration technology. A bill titled Microplastic Filters (Washing Machine Bill) has since been drafted and opened in the house of commons. The bill had its first reading in the house of commons last year and would require manufacturers to fit microplastic-catching filters to new domestic and commercial washing machines. It is due for a second reading early this year where we hope to see it progress swiftly into the committee stage.

 

Everyday microfibres continue to accumulate in our environment

 

The scientific community, technology innovators, brands, manufacturers and legislative bodies must effectively collaborate to ensure momentum and progress continues. The time is now.

 

 

References


1. Napper I., Thomson R. Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres from domestic washing machines: Effects of fabric type and washing conditions. 2016.
2. Julien Boucher, Damien Friot. Primary Microplastics in the Oceans. 2017 in the Oceans. 2017
3. Judith S. Weis and Francesca De Falco. Microfibers: Environmental Problems and Textile Solutions. 2022
4. Napper I. et al. Reaching New Heights in Plastic Pollution—Preliminary Findings of Microplastics on Mount Everest
5. Peng et al. Microplastics contaminate the deepest part of the world’s ocean. European Association
6. H. A. Leslie et al .Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood.
7. Statistica 2022

8. Ellen MacArthur Foundation: A New Textiles Economy. 2017
9. Ellen MacArthur Foundation: A New Textiles Economy. 2017
10. Changing Markets Foundation, 2021. Synthetics Anonymous: fashion brands’ addiction to fossil fuels. 
11. Changing Markets Foundation, 2021. Synthetics Anonymous: fashion brands’ addiction to fossil fuels.
12. How To Reduce Plastic Use: 4 Small Changes | myenergi

13. Chemical Analysis of Microplastics and Nanoplastics: Challenges, Advanced Methods, and Perspectives. Natalia P. Ivleva. Chemical Reviews 2021.
14. Pedrotti ML, de Figueiredo Lacerda AL, Petit S, Ghiglione JF, Gorsky G (2022) Vibrio spp and other potential pathogenic bacteria associated to microfibers in the North-Western Mediterranean Sea.
15. H. A. Leslie et al .Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. 2022. 1. Napper I., Thomson R. Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres from domestic washing machines: Effects of fabric type and washing conditions. 2016.
16. Bai et al. Microplastics: A review of analytical methods, occurrence and characteristics in food, and potential toxicities to biota. 2022.​
17. Environment Agency strategy for safe and sustainable sludge use – GOV.UK
18. J. Lofty, V. Muhawenimana, C.A.M.E. Wilson, P. Ouro,Microplastics removal from a primary settler tank in a wastewater treatment plant and estimations of contamination onto European agricultural land via sewage sludge recycling, Environmental Pollution, Volume 304. 2022
19. J. Lofty, V. Muhawenimana, C.A.M.E. Wilson, P. Ouro,Microplastics removal from a primary settler tank in a wastewater treatment plant and estimations of contamination onto European agricultural land via sewage sludge recycling, Environmental Pollution, Volume 304. 2022
20. Microplastics in Seafood and the Implications for Human Health Madeleine Smith, David C. Love, Chelsea M. Rochman, and Roni A. Neff. 2018 21. Danapolous et al. Journal of Hazardous Materials. A rapid review and meta-regression analyses of the toxicological impacts of microplastic exposure in human cells. 2022.
22. Li et al 2021. Research on the Influence of Microplastics on Marine Life
23. D’Angelo S, Meccariello R. Microplastics: a threat for male fertility. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(5):2392.
24. Wiesinger et al. Environmental Science & Technology. Deep Dive into Plastic Monomers, Additives, and Processing Aids. 2021.
25. Smith et al. Current Environmental Health Reports. Microplastics in Seafood and the Implications for Human Health. 2018.
26.Aves, A. R., Revell, L. E., Gaw, S., Ruffell, H., Schuddeboom, A., Wotherspoon, N. E., LaRue, M., and McDonald, A. J.: First evidence of microplastics in Antarctic snow, The Cryosphere, 2022.
27. Between source and sea: The role of wastewater treatment in reducing marine microplastics – ScienceDirect Daisy Harley-Nyang, Fayyaz Ali Memon, Nina Jones, Tamara Galloway, Investigation and analysis of microplastics in sewage sludge and biosolids: A case study from one wastewater treatment works in the UK. Science of The Total Environment. 2022
28 Between source and sea: The role of wastewater treatment in reducing marine microplastics – ScienceDirect Daisy Harley-Nyang, Fayyaz Ali Memon, Nina Jones, Tamara Galloway, Investigation and analysis of microplastics in sewage sludge and biosolids: A case study from one wastewater treatment works in the UK. Science of The Total Environment. 2022
29. Prof. dr. Barbro Melgert, Dr. Fransien van Dijk, Dr. Ingeborg Kooter, Dr. Bastien Venzac Lungs; do we really inhale plastics? 2020.
30. Prof. dr. Barbro Melgert, Dr. Fransien van Dijk, Dr. Ingeborg Kooter, Dr. Bastien Venzac Lungs; do we really inhale plastics? 2020.
31. Statistica 2022.

READ NEXT