Dirty
Microfiber and Plastic Fish
Although microfiber cloth and
microbeads seemed to allow for a new generation of drying and scrubbing
products, we are only now beginning to understand their impacts on our
environment. These types of products are
made from plastics or synthetic materials that are not biodegradable, but are
small enough that they cannot be filtered out by existing water treatment
systems. And, as a result, are
eventually washed out into our lakes, rivers and oceans to become microplastic
litter. The primary source of
mircoplastic litter, the most prevalent of which is microfibers, are produced
from washing synthetic or microfiber cloth.
The Extent of
Microplastic Litter and Potential Impacts
In her 2014 article titled “Inside the lonely fight against
the biggest environmental problem you've never heard of”, Mary O’connor summed
up Mark Browne’s pivotal study by noting that he “knew he’d found something big when, after
months of tediously examining sediment along shorelines around the world, he
noticed something no one had predicted: fibers. Everywhere. They were tiny and
synthetic and…they were coming from us.” Brown and his colleagues (2011) found that “experiments sampling wastewater from domestic
washing machines demonstrated that a single garment can produce >1900 fibers
per wash.” Those microfibers are then washed into the
sewers and eventually make their way through the water treatment systems and
out into our rivers, lakes and oceans where they are consumed by a variety
different types of marine life. Over time, the microplastics work their way up
the food chain as larger animals eat smaller ones until they eventually become
concentrated in the seafood that we eat.
“The first time professor Sherri Mason cut open a Great Lakes fish, she
was alarmed at what she found. Synthetic fibers were everywhere…Under a microscope,
they seemed to be ‘weaving themselves into the gastrointestinal tract’”
(Messinger, 2016). The end result is
that researchers are now finding that the fish and other seafood that we
consume have a significantly higher plastic content, and associated toxins,
than most people would probably be comfortable with if they only knew. There is also the additional danger that the
by-products from fishing that contain those toxins and plastics will be used in
the production of animal feed and fertilizers, in which case the issue is no
longer be confined to our rivers, lakes and oceans, but distributed throughout
the entire food chain.
Sources
of Microplastic Litter
Plastics are made from compounds
derived from oil, coal and natural gas, including carbon, silicon,
hydrogen, oxygen and chloride (Shah et al., 2008). They are extremely
flexible, durable and can persist in the environment for decades. And
although most people have never heard of microplastics, or “miscropic plastic
that measures less than 5 mm in diameter“(Browne et al., 2011), microplastic litter may well be
one of the biggest environmental issues of our time.
There are essentially three types of
microplastic litter, fragments, beads and fibers. Microplastic fragments are the result of the
breakdown of larger plastic items into smaller and smaller pieces (do Sul, J. and Costa, 2014). Microbeads are manufactured as an abrasive and
added to a variety of items, such as bath and body scrubs, cleansers, toothpastes,
etc… And Microfiber, which is an
extremely fine (approximately one-fifth the diameter of a human hair) synthetic
fiber or yarn which is used to make a variety of products including microfiber drying
cloths, fleece, etc… (Dirty Laundry, 2015). According
to Greiff (2015), “Fleece is polyester, which isn't biodegradable. It's made
from oil, and like most plastic it's almost immune to the elements. But ”unlike
the types of plastic pollution that most people are familiar with, such as
bottles, product packaging, footwear, bottle
caps and cigarette butts,
microplastics are small enough to actually make their way into the food chain.
Microplastic
Pollution and the Food Chain
Microplastic litter is consumed by
“marine organisms throughout the food chain” and according to Seltenrich (2015), “once plastics have been consumed,
laboratory tests show that chemical additives and absorbed pollutants and
metals on their surface can desorb (leach out) and transfer into the guts and
tissues of marine organisms” (Seltenrich,
2015).
According to Greiff (2015) “These tiny bits of plastic end
up being consumed by small fish and filter-feeders such as oysters and clams.
The stuff can then make it up the food chain...” In fact in the Great Lakes, “microfibers
have been found lodged in the stomach and intestines of fish caught and sold
for consumption” (Hawthorne, 2015). And
although studies to determine how the consumption of fish containing plastic,
and the associated toxins, have yet to be conducted, common sense would suggest
that eating fish containing any amount of plastic or toxins should be avoided.
The
Current Crux of the Issue
Scientific studies worldwide have
now demonstrated an ever growing level of pollution, from microplastics, in our
oceans, lakes and rivers (Browne et al., 2011).
And although fragments, which start as much larger items, are no
less damaging than the other two types of microplastic litter, the technologies
and facilities are currently in place to mitigate their effects through better
waste management. However, microbeads
and microfibers are purposefully manufactured at a small enough scale that
there are currently no systems in place to stop them from being carried through
household drains into the sewer systems, and eventually into the oceans. And although microbeads have recently been
banned in the US (Microbead-free Waters Act of 2015), recent studies suggest that microfibers are even more
pervasive and may represent a much larger problem. In a recent study, Brown
(2011) found that microfibers made up 85% of the litter found on shorelines
around the globe.
Browne and his colleagues (2011) looked at
coasts around the world to try to determine both the extent and source of the
microplastic pollution and found that
“An important source of microplastic appears to be through sewage contaminated
by fibers from washing clothes.” In her
2015 article, Messinger notes that microfibers “could be poisoning our
waterways and food chain on a massive scale.”
And according to Greiff (2015), “This microscopic junk is almost everywhere”. And of the samples of sand
from 18 beaches on six continents, Browne and his colleagues (2011) found that not one “was free of the microfibers”.
How
to Help Mitigate the Problem Today
Although most researchers, manufacturers and
governmental agencies seem to agree that more research on the extent and impact
of the microfiber pollution issue is needed, it also seems clear from the
existing studies that the problem is already big enough that action is
warranted. The United Sates government
has already demonstrated, with the passage of H.R. 1321-Microbead-Free Waters
Act of 2015 which bans the manufacture and sale of “microbeads”, its awareness
that microplastic pollution is not only an issue, but one that requires
action. However, they have yet to ban
microfiber, which has been demonstrated to be more prevalent than microbeads
(Browne et al., 2011) and as such represents a bigger problem; a problem that
will only continue grow. “As the
population of the planet continues to grow “and people use more synthetic
textiles, contamination of habitats and animals by microplastic is likely to
increase” (Browne
et al., 2011).
Although
the evidence for microfiber pollution seems clear, the solution is not. Banning the manufacture and sale of
microfiber, the same way microbeads were banned, seems the obvious solution. However, there are some applications that
require regular washing for which there are currently no good alternatives,
primarily outdoor performance clothing. So until a ban is passed or some
alternative becomes available, how do we mitigate the damage? A variety of solutions have been suggested,
including retrofitting all washing machines with special filters and filtering
the microscopic plastic at the water treatment plant level, however, so far
none of them are considered by experts as viable (Lai, 2016).
So
until we find an implementable solution to the microfiber pollution issue, the
best option would seem to be simply limiting the types of microfiber products
we use that require regular washing. Choosing
everyday clothing made from non-synthetic materials, performance wool outdoor
clothing rather than synthetic, use a chamois instead of that microfiber drying
towel, and put off washing that fleece until it’s really, really, really dirty. After all, wearing a microfiber fleece that’s
a little dirty, is still better than eating a fish that’s a little plastic.
Bibliography
Browne,
M. A. (2011, December 19). Global Challenges/Chemistry Solutions. Retrieved May
23, 2016, from https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/podcasts/globalchallenges/publichealth/household-washing-machines-are-a-source-of-potentially-harmful-ocean-microplastic-pollution.html
Browne,
M. A., Crump, P., Niven, S. J., III, Teuten, E., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T.,
& Thimpson, R. (2011, September 6). Accumulation of Microplastic on
Shorelines Woldwide: Sources and Sinks. Environmental Science and Technology,
2011(45), 21st ser., 9175-9179. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es201811s
Greiff,
J. (2015, October 20). Clean the Fleece, Dirty the Planet. Retrieved May 26,
2016, from https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-10-20/laundering-that-fleece-sweater-makes-the-planet-dirtier
Hawthorne, M. (2015, February 1). A
new pollution worry for Lake Michigan: Tiny plastic fibers. Chicago Tribune.
Retrieved June 21, 2016, from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-great-lakes-fiber-pollution-20150130-story.html
Imam, J. (2015, December 31). Microbead ban signed
by President Obama. Retrieved May 26, 2016, from http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/health/obama-bans-microbeads/
Lai, J.
(2016). Microbeads Banned, but What About Microfibers. Retrieved May 26, 2016,
from https://gelr.org/2016/04/21/microbeads-banned-but-what-about-microfibers-georgetown-environmental-law-review/#_edn7
Lai, J. (2016, April 21). Microbeads
Banned, but What About Microfibers. Retrieved June 26, 2016, from https://gelr.org/2016/04/21/microbeads-banned-but-what-about-microfibers-georgetown-environmental-law-review/#_edn14
Messinger, L. (2016, June 20). How
your clothes are poisoning our oceans and food supply. The Guardian.
Retrieved June 27, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/20/microfibers-plastic-pollution-oceans-patagonia-synthetic-clothes-microbeads
O'Connor,
M. C. (2014, October 27). Inside the lonely fight against the biggest
environmental problem you've never heard of. Retrieved May 23, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/oct/27/toxic-plastic-synthetic-microscopic-oceans-microbeads-microfibers-food-chain
Rochman, C. M., Kross, S. M., Armstrong, J. B.,
Bogan, M. T., Darling, E. S., Green, S. J., ... & Veríssimo, D. (2015).
Scientific evidence supports a ban on microbeads. Environmental science &
technology, 49(18),
10759-10761, from https://conbio.org/images/content_policy/03.24.15_Microbead_Brief_Statement.pdf
Seltenrich, N. (2015). New link in the food
chain? Marine plastic pollution and seafood safety. Environmental health perspectives, 123(2), A34-A41, from http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/123-a34/?utm_source=charybd.com&utm_medium=link&utm_compaign=article
Shah, A. A., Hasan, F., Hameed, A., &
Ahmed, S. (2008). Biological degradation of plastics: a comprehensive review. Biotechnology advances,26(3),
246-265, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0734975008000141
do Sul, J. A. I., & Costa, M. F. (2014).
The present and future of microplastic pollution in the marine environment. Environmental Pollution, 185, 352-364, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Monica_Costa12/publication/258921511_The_present_and_future_of_microplastic_pollution_in_the_marine_environment/links/544c16e90cf24b5d6c409308.pdf
Thompson, R. C., Swan, S. H., Moore, C. J.,
& Vom Saal, F. S. (2009). Our plastic age. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526),
1973-1976, from http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1526/1973.short
Wright,
S. L., Rowe, D., Thompson, R. C., & Galloway, T. S. (2013, December 2).
Microplastics make marine worms sick. Microplastic Ingestion Decreases Energy
Reserves in Marine Worms, 23(23), R1031-R1033. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.068
Dirty
Laundry: Scientists Warn of Microfiber Pollution in Great Lakes. (2015, January
09). Retrieved May 26, 2016, from http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/dirty-laundry-scientists-warn-microfiber-pollution-great-lakes-n283361
U.S.Cong.,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,. (n.d.). Microbead-free Waters Act of 2015:
Report (to accompany H.R. 1321) (including cost estimate of the Congressional
Budget Office) [Cong. Rept.]. Full Text : https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1321
