Plastics/Microfibers From Laundry Enter Oceans Every Day

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

tomturbomatic

Well-known member
Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2001
Messages
21,695
Location
Beltsville, MD
Where do they get the idea that polyester is breathable?

 

Off the coast of Cullercoats, in northeast England, researchers Max Kelly and Priscilla Carrillo-Barragan send a long tubular net into the depths of the North Sea.

Known as a vertical tow, the net is used to collect samples of microscopic zooplankton, whose health can serve as a bellwether for an ocean's overall wellbeing.

Newcastle University's Dove Marine Laboratory has been collecting microorganisms from these waters for the last 50 years, shedding light on the impact of changing nutrient levels and global warming. But now experts are studying the samples to examine a growing but almost invisible threat to our seas: plastic microfibers.

Striking photos show a decade of environmental decline along the Ganges

Microplastics (those measuring up to 5 millimeters in diameter) make up almost a fifth of the 8 million tons of plastic that ends up in the oceans each year. Of these, miniscule strands known as microfibers -- which largely come from synthetic clothing -- are the most common, according to Kelly, who researches marine biotechnology at the university.

"A lot of our work is focused on polyester, and polyester is the most widely used synthetic fiber in the textile industry," he says. "So we're ... looking at (what happens) when we wash clothes, what polyester fibers come off and wash down the drain pipes into the ocean where they can be ingested by a wide range by animals."

 

Every time we do our laundry, our clothes shed millions of microfibers. Although wastewater treatment plants are able to catch as much as 99% of them, the rest can eventually flow into rivers, waterways and, ultimately, the ocean.

"You go from washing machine into environment pretty easily," Kelly adds.

<h3>Invisible threat</h3>

With Monday marking World Oceans Day, much attention will be paid to the impact of plastic bags, bottles and discarded fishing nets on marine life. But while these pollutants pose serious threats to larger animals, it's microplastics that disrupt life at the very bottom of the food chain.

Chinese artist Wan Yunfeng is turning trash into high fashion

According to Carrillo-Barragan, a research associate at Dove Marine Laboratory, the fibers have an immediate impact on the microorganisms themselves, on aspects such as feeding behavior, reproduction and larval development. This could, in turn, affect the health of the whole marine ecosystem.

"It's been reported that instead of eating what they need, (microorganisms) are eating plastic so they don't get the nutrients they need," she explains. "And then, what the studies mention, is they don't develop as they should.

"If you think of these (microorganisms) being at the base of the food web, then ... they are food for other bigger species, and then they are not getting the nutrients they need. So it is, overall, a less nutritious cycle."
There are fears that these plastic particles may eventually end up on our dinner tables. And while there are still many unanswered questions about bioaccumulation -- a process whereby potentially toxic particles make their way up the food chain -- Carrillo-Barragan sees worrying signs in the nascent research.

"It's an early science," she says. "We are just starting to do experiments on the possible effects that (microplastics) might have in all levels of life -- including us.

"We don't know exactly what is going to happen, or what will be the consequences. But we can tell that just by the abundance of (microfibers in the ocean) ... that there might be something."

<h3>Fast fashion's impact</h3>

At the root of the problem is a global textile industry that Kelly says produces more than 40 million tons of synthetic fabrics a year. The vast majority of this is polyester clothing, he explains, while acknowledging the material's many benefits.

"It's a great material to make clothing," he concedes. "It's very breathable. It is used a lot for sports and outdoor activity. They dry really well and it's a cheap material as well. It is very durable and lightweight.

The problem with 'sustainable fashion'

"So it is ideal in terms of clothing. However ... that durability makes it very difficult to degrade."

The British researcher has been working with multinational corporation Proctor & Gamble, which makes detergents among much else, to investigate how individuals' laundry habits may impact the number of microfibers released per wash. Their studies have found that delicate wash cycles can produce 800,000 more microfibers than regular ones.ali, prepare polyester polo shirts. <span class="BasicArticle__credit">Credit: </span><span class="BasicArticle__credit">The Washington Post/Getty Images</span>
Neil Lant, a research fellow at the American firm, says that cold, quick wash cycles can help people reduce their plastic footprint. He also recommends only running full loads and using a high-efficiency washing machine.

The use of chemical detergents, fabric softener and stain removers, as well as the synthetic dyes released from clothes during washing, can all have a negative impact on the environment. But cutting down the amount of new clothing we buy may, in addition reducing textile waste, have the added benefit of lessening microfiber pollution.

These otherworldly photographs warn of Iceland's disappearing rivers

"We found new clothing, was shedding much more fiber than older fabrics," Lance says. "And we did testing of 60 washes to confirm this. That's really important because it's telling consumers another way that they can slow down fiber loss, and to significantly reduce the amount of fibers (released), is to buy less new clothing.

"It'll help people financially and it'll also be great for the environment. So we think everyone's a winner. But it does involve a culture change for sure."

Kelly adds, "People should care because we've all got to play our part. (If) we play our part, it's going to equate to a big overall positive impact on the ocean."

Watch the video above to learn more about Newcastle University's research into the environmental impact of microfibers.

http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F200605071346-01-polyester-rwanda-file.jpg


http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F200605071544-01-wool-thailand-file.jpg


http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F200605180505-newcastle-marine-biologists-restricted.jpg


 
When I do my clothes-the water waste goes into my septic tank.The other day I had it pumpted-where it goes from there on the septic tank pumper truck I don't know.I am sure some of those clothes-lint particles go into the drainage field from the tank.Same with neighbors-his is right next to mine.
 
Over here there has been awareness for a long time that part of the micro plastic from waste water ends up in the oceans.
For instance polyethylene micro beads in toothpaste have been outlawed and there are even wash bags on the market to keep micro fibers out of waste water.
They are not to be confused with wash bags intended for delicates which have been around for decades and they are just a tiny niche product for a bunch of super green consumers probably the type that make their own laundry detergent from organically grown wash nuts, but still.
Can only imagine the linty mess you`d find after a wash cycle in these, especially if someone line dries which I dare say most of those do anyway.

But then as mankind evolves I could imagine plastic including synthetic fibers to be outlawed or at least replaced with something less critical at some point in the future.

 
delicate wash cycles...

How on Earth can the delicate cycles produce more fibres than the normal cycle?

I don't understand that. The delicate cycles surely have a much less aggressive action?

What sort of machines were they using? What kind of detergent were they using?

Have they been using some sort of detergent which actively degrades polyester, such as one with a manganese catalyst?
 
"How on Earth can the delicate cycles produce more fibre

I have been wondering the same since I first read this (some time ago, this is old news).

My suspicion is that the delicate wash does not "produce" more microfibres, but instead it just "removes" more of the microfibres that are normally produced by the use of the fabric: we all know that using more water (as normally the delicate cycles do) removes more lint, hair, or whatever from the fabric.

Which means that, if they weren't removed by the delicate wash, exactly the same microfibres would be released in the environment when the fabric is used.

Am I the only one that smells pseudo-science?

And by the way: many, many years ago microfibres were already found in the Mediterranean see, and the culprit was believed to be clothes washing, so this is nothing new
 
"...only one that smells pseudo-science?"

No, you're not - that article has some weird political bent to it.

I usually find that certain newspaper articles from various publications, and television programmes too, purport to be telling a balanced view, but in actual fact are skewed one way or another.

I wonder if in this article they compared cottons on the normal cycle, to polyester on the delicate programme. If they did, then they're comparing apples and oranges.

Cotton fabrics aren't the whole answer either. I saw a smidgen of a television programme a few years ago - I think the presenter was Stacey Dooley - where she was on a mission to investigate the environmental impact of growing cotton. Very water intensive apparently.

Maybe we need a highly robust, non-shedding, everlasting, self-cleaning synthetic fabric.
 
Agreed. Pseudo-Science Alert!

There's a surface appearance of information but very little that can actually pin down. It paints a picture that's out a bit out of focus.

That random sentence about Iceland. What's up with that?

There's an overabundance of conditional words like, might, possible, could, etc.

Oh, and you can't do an experiment on something that is undefined. If the topic/subject is by nature undefined and you've no clue about it, you pick a random area, make clear borders, and only look at what's inside. If you're casting about for data, that's fine, but you have to say exactly what you're doing. It's ok to say it in non-scientific, everyday language in an article like this . But you have to say it.

A gazillion years of schooling and more papers than I could ever count suggest to me that either there's a specific agenda or that this article was originally much longer and was shortened by an editor who really didn't understand what he was reading so essential info got cut and superfluous stuff didn't.
 
"either there's a specific agenda or..."

I cannot remember where I read it, but I seem to remember that the EU is "discussing" the addition of microplastic filters to washing machines.

I have found only this, which is not much, but...

 
On average synthetic clothes, particularly fleeces release a lot of fibers during the wash. So cotton is more eco friendly in that aspect. If fleece clothes are washed on a delicate cycle and cottons on a cotton cycle, the difference would make sense. It's not comparing apples and pears, the clothes are just washed on the dedicated cycle.
 
 
I read several years ago that plastic microfibers had already gotten a substantial saturation into the environment.

Regards to the filter of the link above, it's stated to be "self-cleaning" but it's not.  It is to be returned to the vendor for recycling the collected fibers.  Assuming it's a pass-through drain filter there's the concern of it getting clogged as fibers are collected to the point that drain flow is impaired.  More efficient/aggressive filtering = quicker clogging and more changing/recycling returns.
 
I'm not yet convinced that microfibers are really an environmental problem to begin with. After all, there are any number of non-biodegradable substances naturally occurring in the earth's crust that can wind up going down our drains. For example, metals, various minerals including asbestos. And even some types of plant fiber can take a very long time to biodegrade (ever seen how long a peach pit lasts in a compost pile?).

That said, I admit I haven't undertaken to review all the info on microfibers vs. environment. Just saying.

And if I'm not mistaken, there are some microorganisms that can eat various types of plastics. Plus, plain old sunlight seems quite effective at breaking down a number of plastics, over time.

YMMV
 
"microfibers are really an environmental problem"

One of the many problems with plastic in the environment, is that it is taken for food and eaten by different animals, it remains stuck in their stomach and kills them.

Microplastics in the oceans kill small animals that eat it thinking it is plankton, and this blocks the food chain at the first step.

Birds eat bigger pieces of plastic and die; marine animals eat plastic bags thinking they are jellyfishes and die.

The list could continue...

Sunlight and other environment elements take a very, very long time to degrade plastic, but first they break it into very small pieces (microplastic) that survive long enough to enter into the food chain before they are completely degraded.

As far as I know, only one organism able to degrade plastic has been found, it produces an enzyme that has been called "PETase" (from "PET", "polyethylene terephthalate") but it is still under study to see if it can be used to recycle plastic.

 

Latest posts

Back
Top