Dirty Microfiber and Plastic Fish

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