Scientists estimate that over 8 million tons of plastic enter our oceans each year. While we have all seen the plastic bottles, bags, and straws that contribute to the plastic pollution problem, one major source of plastic pollution is less obvious: our clothes. The majority of clothing on the planet is made from plastic-based materials like polyester, rayon, nylon, and acrylic. When washed, synthetic clothing sheds tiny plastic fragments known as microfibers. Microfibers are the most prevalent type of microplastic (plastic pieces less than 5 mm in diameter) found in the environment.
Image
Though we cannot see them, plastic microfibers are all around us. Researchers have found microfibers in a diverse range of land and aquatic ecosystems, from shorelines and the seafloor, to remote areas in US national parks, and even in snow in the Alps and the Arctic. Once in the environment, microfibers are extremely difficult to clean up. For this reason, it is critical to prevent this type of pollution from entering the environment in the first place.
Additional research is needed to understand how microfibers enter the environment and where they come from, but many studies suggest that washing clothes is one major source. A 2019 study by Ocean Wise estimated that the average household in the US and Canada releases 533 million microfibers—or 135 grams—of microfibers to wastewater treatment plants each year. Wastewater treatment plants filter out the majority of microfibers, but because they are so small, some microfibers pass through the wastewater treatment systems, entering our waterways and oceans. The same Ocean Wise study estimated that the US and Canada together release 878 tons of microfibers into the environment through treated wastewater.
Scientists are only beginning to understand the impacts that microfiber pollution may have on the environment and on humans. Microfibers can harm the small aquatic organisms that ingest them. Microfibers can also contain toxic chemicals that are intentionally added to textiles during the manufacturing process or that accumulate on plastic particles in the ocean.
In 2017, marine biologist Dr. Richard Kirby was able to capture on film an arrow worm plankton encountering and ingesting a single microfiber. The fiber then became entangled within the plankton's digestive tract, blocking it. “When I saw it, I thought that here was something, visually, to convey to the public the problem of plastic in the sea,” Kirby said in an interview with BBC News. “Plankton are the basic level of the marine food chain. All the plastics they eat are passed on.”
Researchers have found plastic microfibers in a variety of the fish and shellfish that people consume. Though scientific research has made it clear that humans are exposed to microplastics through the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe, we do not yet know what effects microplastics might have on our health. More research is needed to better understand the full set of risks posed by this pollutant.
As scientific research continues to expose the pervasiveness of microfibers in habitats and species around the world, concern about microfiber pollution is growing. Recognizing the magnitude of this problem, universities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), companies, and governments are working to find solutions.
Image
Companies in the apparel industry have teamed up with NGOs and academics to conduct research and testing that can help textile manufacturers and apparel companies produce garments that minimize microfiber shedding. The degree to which a garment sheds microfibers in the wash depends on a wide variety of factors, including the garment's age, construction, material type, and chemical finish. The complex nature of textile production makes research on microfiber shedding especially challenging.
While these efforts are important, it will likely take many years before research on microfiber shedding can lead to large-scale changes in the global production of textiles. With more and more microfibers accumulating in our waterways each day, one of the best solutions may be trapping microfibers before they leave the household. Currently, most washing machines do not have built-in microfiber filters, though several global appliance manufacturers are developing them.
Several types of external microfiber filters are already available for purchase. Consumers can attach these filters to their household washing machines and periodically dispose of the captured microfibers in the same way that they clean the lint screen in a dryer (in fact, “dryer lint” is just another term for microfibers). A 2018 study by the University of Toronto and Ocean Conservancy found that on average, one type of after-market washing machine filter captured 87% of the microfibers shed by fleece blankets in the wash. Consumers can also purchase laundry balls and garment bags that are specially designed to capture microfibers in the wash. These external washing machine filters and fiber-catching technologies provide an immediate and relatively effective way to stem the flow of microfibers into waterways.
France has recently adopted a law that will require all new washing machines to have microfiber filters by 2025, making it the first country to put in place regulations to reduce the amount of microfiber pollution from laundry. Though several state governments acknowledge that microfibers are a problem, there are currently no state or federal regulations in the US that specifically address the issue of microfiber pollution from laundry. However, if passed, a bill in the California State Legislature would create a one-year pilot program to assess the effectiveness of microfiber filtration systems by installing and monitoring filters in 10 state-owned laundry facilities.
Microfiber pollution is a complex problem, but here are some simple steps you can take to help reduce the number of microfibers that flow from your washing machine to waterways.
Image
We are only beginning to understand the scale, the sources, and the risks of microfiber pollution. However, we know enough to start addressing the problem now, starting with our home laundry. By making these relatively simple changes, we can do a lot to reduce the flow of plastic into the environment.
This article was produced by the National Environmental Education Foundation in collaboration with EPA's Trash-Free Waters program. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
As environmental challenges go, microfiber pollution has come from practically out of nowhere. It was only a decade or so ago that scientists first suspected our clothing, increasingly made of synthetic materials like polyester and nylon, might be major contributors to the global plastic problem.
Today a growing body of science suggests the tiny strands that slough off clothes are everywhere and in everything. By one estimate, they account for as much as one-third of all microplastics released to the ocean. They’ve been found on Mount Everest and in the Mariana Trench, along with tap water, plankton, shrimp guts, and our poo.
Research has yet to establish just what this means for human and planetary health. But the emerging science has left some governments, particularly in the Global North, scrambling to respond. Their first target: the humble washing machine, which environmentalists say represents a major way microfiber pollution reaches the environment.
Late last month a California State Assembly committee held a hearing on Assembly Bill 1628, which would require new washing machines to include devices that trap particles down to 100 micrometers — roughly the width of human hair — by 2029. The Golden State isn’t alone here, or even first. France already approved such a requirement, effective 2025. Lawmakers in Oregon and Ontario, Canada have considered similar bills. The European Commission says it’ll do the same in 2025.
Environmental groups, earth scientists and some outdoor apparel companies cheer the policies as an important first response to a massive problem. But quietly, some sustainability experts feel perplexed by all the focus on washers. They doubt filters will achieve much, and say what’s really needed is a comprehensive shift in how we make, clean and dispose of clothes.
Reader support helps sustain our work. Donate today to keep our climate news free. All donations DOUBLED!
One Time
Monthly
$120
$180
Other
$10
$15
Other
The wash is “only one shedding point in the lifecycle of the garment. To focus on that tiny, tiny moment of laundry is completely nuts,” said Richard Blackburn, a professor of sustainable materials at the University of Leeds. “It would be much better to focus on the whole life cycle of the garment, of which the manufacturing stage is much more significant in terms of loss than laundering, but all points should be considered.”
Today, some 60 percent of all textiles incorporate synthetic material. Anyone who’s worn yoga pants, workout gear or stretchy jeans knows the benefits: These materials add softness, wicking and flexibility. Under a microscope, though, they look a lot like plain old plastic. From the moment they’re made, synthetic clothes — like all clothes — release tiny shreds of themselves. Once liberated these fibers are no easier to retrieve than glitter tossed into the wind. But their size, shape, and tendency to absorb chemicals leaves scientists concerned about their impacts on habitats and the food chain.
Anja Brandon is an associate director for U.S. plastics policy at the Ocean Conservancy who has supported the California and Oregon bills. She concedes that filters won’t fix the problem, but believes they offer a way to get started. She also supports clothing innovations but said they could be years away. “I for one don’t want to wait until it’s a five-alarm fire,” she said.
Studies suggest a typical load of laundry can release thousands or even millions of fibers. Commercially available filters, like the PlanetCare, Lint LUV-R and Filtrol, strain the gray water through ultra-fine mesh before flushing it into the world. It’s the owner’s job, of course, to periodically empty that filter — ideally into a trash bag, which Brandon said will secure microfibers better than the status quo of letting them loose into nature.
Washing machine filters containing microfibers. Owen Humphreys/PA Images via Getty ImagesWashing machine manufacturers in the U.S. and Europe have pushed back, saying the devices pose technical risks, like flooding and increased energy consumption, that must be addressed first. University experiments with these filters, including an oft-cited 2019 study by the University of Toronto and the Ocean Conservancy, haven’t found these issues, but it’s not a closed case yet: Last year a federal report on microfibers, led by the Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, called for more research in this vein.
Manufacturers also argue that microfibers originate in a lot of places, but washers are a relatively modest one. As self-serving as that sounds, people who study the issue agree there’s a huge hole in the available science: While we know clothes shed microfibers throughout their lives, we know surprisingly little about when most of it happens.
Some evidence suggests that the friction of simply wearing clothes might release about as many microfibers as washing them. Then there are dryers, which some suspect are a major source of microfiber litter but have been barely studied, according to the federal report. There is also limited knowledge about how much microfiber pollution comes from the developing world, where most people wash by hand. (A recent study led by Hangzhou Dianzi University in Hangzhou, China pointed to this knowledge gap – and found that hand-washing two synthetic fabrics released on average 80 to 90 percent fewer microfiber pollution than machine-washing.)
To Blackburn, it’s obvious that most releases occur in textile mills, where it’s been known for centuries that spinning, weaving, dyeing and finishing fabric spritzes lots of fiber. “Where do you think it goes when we get it out of the factory?” he said. “It goes into the open air.”
He calls filter policies “totally reactionary,” arguing that they would at best shave a few percentage points off the total microfiber problem. But there is one area where Blackburn is in broad agreement with environmentalists: In the long run, tackling the issue will take a lot of new technology. No silver-bullet solution has appeared yet, but a slew of recent announcements reveals a vibrant scene of research and development attacking the problem from many angles.
Antonio Hugo PhotoSome best practices already are known within the industry. For example, more tightly woven clothes, and clothes made of long fibers rather than short ones, fray less. But for years, popular brands like Patagonia and REI have said what they really need is a way to experiment with many different materials and compare their shedding head to head. This has been tricky: Microfibers are, well, micro, and there’s no industry standard on how to measure them.
That might be changing. In separate announcements in February, Hohenstein, a company that develops international standards for textiles, and activewear brand Under Armour revealed new methods in this vein. Under Armour is targeting 75 percent “low-shed” fabrics in its products by 2030.
These approaches would at best reduce microfiber emissions, not eliminate them. So another field of research is what Blackburn calls “biocompatibility”: making microfibers less harmful to nature. California-based companyIntrinsic Advanced Materials sells a pre-treatment, added to fabrics during manufacturing, that it claims helps polyester and nylon biodegrade in seawater within years rather than decades. Blackburn’s own startup, Keracol, develops natural dyes, pulled from things like fruit waste, that break down more easily in nature than synthetic ones.
New ideas to dispose of clothes are also emerging, though some will cause arched eyebrows among environmentalists. This year U.S. chemical giant Eastman will start building a facility in Normandy, France that it claims “unzips” hard-to-recycle plastics, like polyester clothes, into molecular precursors that can be fashioned into new products like clothes and insulation. Critics charge that such “chemical recycling” techniques are not only of dubious benefit to the environment, they’re really just a smokescreen for fossil-fuel corporations trying to keep their product in demand.
Lest anyone forget about washing machines, there’s R&D going after them, too. In January Patagonia and appliance giant Samsung announced a model that they claim cuts micro plastic emissions up to 54%. It’s already rolled out in Europe and Korea. At around the same time, University of Toronto researchers published research on a coating that, they claim, makes nylon fabric more slippery in the wash, reducing friction and thus microfiber emissions by 90 percent after nine washes. In a press release the researchers tut-tutted governments for their focus on washing-machine filters, which they called a “Band-Aid” for the issue.
One continuous thread through all these efforts, of course, is that everyone is working with imperfect information. The emerging science on microfibers – and microplastics in general – suggests they’re a gritty fact of modern life, but doesn’t yet show the magnitude of their harm to humans and other species. For the moment environmentalists, policymakers and manufacturers aren’t just debating whether to put filters on washing machines, but whether we know enough to act. In 20 years, when scientists know a lot more, it’ll be easier to judge whether today’s policies represented proactive leadership on an emerging environmental problem — or a soggy Band-Aid.
Editor’s note: Patagonia is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.