Microfibers

From Beachapedia

Revision as of 09:15, 23 May 2019 by Kday (talk | contribs)


Microfiber illustration. Source: Laszlo Kubinyi, Outsideonline.com

The problem of plastics accumulating in the ocean has been widely documented, with eight million metric tons (9 million tons) of land-based plastics entering the world's ocean annually,[1] in addition to hundreds of thousands of tons of abandoned plastic fishing gear (at least 640,000 tons),[2] termed "ghost gear", being left in our marine areas each year. Without a large-scale shift in the world's use and management of plastics, especially single use plastic, this will only get worse. In fact, some projections even indicate that there may be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050. Efforts to combat this problem range from source reduction legislation, such as bans on plastic bags, polystyrene, and plastic cigarette filters; beach cleanups; and even the use of skimmer devices in harbors to much larger proposed cleanup devices in the open ocean.

In recent years, the issue of extremely small plastic particles, termed microplastics, has gotten increasing attention. These microplastics are able to escape wastewater treatment plants, and flow with discharge water straight into our aquatic and marine areas, and become bioavailable to wildlife from plankton to top tier predators. Some microplastics, like plastic microbeads, were actually designed to be micro sized to help with skin exfoliation, while other plastics, like plastic bottles and containers, start out as larger products but break down overtime into smaller and smaller plastic pieces. To address microplastic pollution caused by microbeads, which were mainly present in facial scrubs, body wash products and other cosmetics, bans were first enacted in several jurisdictions to prohibit the use of microbeads in products, and in late 2015, a national Microbead-Free Waters Act bill was signed into law.

But there’s another microplastic problem that may be even more concerning and harder to address, and its showing up in our ocean, on our beaches, in the food we eat, in the water drink, and potentially even in the air we breath, called plastic 'microfibers'.

Intro to Plastic Microfibers

Plastic microfibers are a type of microplastic (plastic particle less than 5 mm) shaped as a fibrous material. Studies have found that the shape of these fibers can actually make them more harmful to marine or aquatic life than spherical microplastic beads, or other microplastics with smooth surfaces, because the fibers have greater surface area (more area for toxic substances to adhere to) and are better able to tangle and catch on to things. Sources of plastic microfibers include synthetic apparel (clothing made with plastic threading instead of natural threading like cotton), plastic tarps, car tires, synthetic ropes and fishing gear, and more.

Plastic Microfibers from Apparel

In 2011, British ecologist Mark Anthony Browne published a study, Accumulation of Microplastic on Shorelines Worldwide: Sources and Sinks describing the discovery of micron-scale synthetic fibers, mostly polyester and acrylic, in sediments along beaches around the world, with the highest concentrations appearing near wastewater-disposal sites. That strongly suggested that the microfibers came from apparel, a hunch he checked by finding 1,900 fibers in the filter of a washing machine after washing a single fleece jacket.

A similar study to test potential for and magnitude of plastic microfibers reaching and being released from wastewater treatment plants was conducted at VU University Amsterdam in 2012. Researchers estimated that laundry wastewater is sending around two billion synthetic microfibers per second into Europe’s waters. As test methods become more refined, the results are only getting more staggering. In 2016, a joint UC Santa Barbara and Patagonia study found that 250,000 microfibers can be shed from a single fleece jacket after just one wash. In the state of California alone, it is estimated that billions of microfibers escape wastewater treatment plants every day.

Fleece jackets are just one of the many products in the synthetic apparel industry, which is clothing partially made from virgin or recycled plastics that have been turned into tiny fibrous plastic materials. These microfibers can be as small as half the size of a red blood cell. When the source of the material is recycled plastics, microfibers have generally been considered an affordable and sustainable material that diverts plastics away from the landfill. Yet results from a variety of studies indicate that this recycled clothing technique may have been causing more harm than good.

Geographic Distribution

Browne and several colleagues gathered sand samples from 18 beaches on six continents for analysis. Every beach tested contained microfibers, and nearly 80 percent were polyester or acrylic. Here is the abstract from Mark Browne’s study:

"Plastic debris <1 mm (defined here as microplastic) is accumulating in marine habitats. Ingestion of microplastic provides a potential pathway for the transfer of pollutants, monomers, and plastic-additives to organisms with uncertain consequences for their health. Here, we show that microplastic contaminates the shorelines at 18 sites worldwide representing six continents from the poles to the equator, with more material in densely populated areas, but no clear relationship between the abundance of microplastics and the mean size-distribution of natural particulates. An important source of microplastic appears to be through sewage contaminated by fibers from washing clothes. Forensic evaluation of microplastic from sediments showed that the proportions of polyester and acrylic fibers used in clothing resembled those found in habitats that receive sewage-discharges and sewage-effluent itself. Experiments sampling wastewater from domestic washing machines demonstrated that a single garment can produce >1900 fibers per wash. This suggests that a large proportion of microplastic fibers found in the marine environment may be derived from sewage as a consequence of washing of clothes. As the human population grows and people use more synthetic textiles, contamination of habitats and animals by microplastic is likely to increase.”


According to an article in Science,

“Not a single beach was free of the colorful synthetic lint. Each cup of sand contained at least two fibers and as many as 31. The most contaminated samples came from areas with the highest population density, suggesting cities were an important source of the lint.”


Almost Everywhere We Look, We Find Plastic Microfibers

Beyond shorelines and beaches, researchers have started expanding studies to test for plastic microfibers in other areas, from the tissues and stomaches of marine life to drinking water sources, and the results all continue to point to the same result- plastic microfibers may be the most ubiquitous human-made pollutant. Studies have identified plastic microfibers in:

  • Tap Water - In 2017, Dr. Sam Mason worked with OrbMedia to conduct an international study on microplastics in tap water. A total of 159 water samples collected and analyzed from five continents, with 83% of the samples containing microplastics (of those microplastics, 99.7% were microfibers). In the United States, 94% of tap water samples contained plastic.
PlasticInGlobalTapWater OrbMedia.png
  • Bottled Water - In 2017, Dr. Mason and Orb Media conducted a similar study but focused solely on microplastics in bottled water from all over the world. A total of 259 bottles from 11 brands were purchased from 19 locations in 9 countries, with 93% of bottled water samples containing microplastics. An average of 325 microplastic particles (larger than 6.5 micrometers) were found per liter of bottle water (ranging from 0 to 10,000 particles per liter). Nestle bottled water contained the highest amount of plastic particles.
2017 Microplastics BottledWater Results Graphic desktop 0.jpg
  • Air - In 2014, a study in France tested indoor and outdoor air for plastic microfibers. Indoors, researchers found an average of 3-15 microfibers/cubic meter of air, while outside they found an average of 0.2-0.8 microfibers/cubic meter air. Alarmingly, researchers found evidence of atmospheric deposition with an average of 29-280 plastic particles/square meter/day. In 2019, another study in France confirmed the potential for atmospheric deposition of microplastics, documenting the deposition of 365 microplastics/square meter/day in a remote area of the French Pyreneese Mountains. Microplastics included particles, fibers, and films.
  • Salt - In 2018, Incheon National University and Greenpeace East Asia published a study that tested commercial food-grade salt for the presence of microplastics. Of the 39 salt brands tested from 16 countries on six continents, the amount of microplastics found ranged from from 0-1674 plastic particles/kg sea salt (with one outlier of 13,629 plastic particles per kg), 0-148 plastic particles per kg rock salt, and 28-462 microplastics per kg lake salt.
  • Honey - In 2013, chemists Gerd and Elisabeth Liebezeit tested 19 honey samples from five countries (Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Mexico) for the presence of "non-pollen particulates", and found that 100% of samples contained microplastics.
  • Seafood - A 2015 study found that one in three shellfish, and one in four finfish sampled at a California fish market contained microfibers, and these fish were headed straight for the dinner table. It is estimated that people could be unknowingly ingesting 11,000 microfibers each year from shellfish consumption, and 178 microfibers from eating a single mussel.
  • Beer - In 2014, chemists Gerd and Elisabeth Liebezeit tested 24 German beer brands for plastic particles, with 100% of samples containing microplastics. Microplastics identified included a range of fibers, particles, and granules.


Environmental and Health Risks

Microplastics (including microfibers) are easily ingested by marine life which may end up on our dinner plates. Essentially the plastics we are washing down the drain with our laundry may work their way up the food chain and come back to haunt us.

Not only does the ingestion of these microfibers reduce the amount of nutrition obtained from feeding, it also poses an additional risk of harmful bacteria and toxic exposure. Of all chemicals known to be persistent in our environment, bioaccumulative in the food chain, and toxic to life (also known as PBTs), 78% are found in or on microfibers. As a result, the concentrations of PBTs in microfibers are orders of magnitude greater than the concentration of PBTs otherwise found in seawater. Examples of observed PBTs included pesticides like DDT, and plastic additives like brominated flame retardants.

Microfibers can actually enter and remain in the bloodstream and tissues of the food we eat. The bioaccumulation of these toxic chemicals puts all affected marine creatures, and humans and wildlife that consume affected marine creatures, at risk.

Beyond risks from consumption, the sheer magnitude of the amount of microfibers throughout marine and coastal environments can have serious ecological implications. Studies have identified a reduction in oyster reproduction rates, and impacts to the sexual determination of baby sea turtles from the slowed warming rates of sandy sediment containing microfibers, among other effects.

The problem of microfibers is not just an ocean issue. When Sherri “Sam” Mason, a chemist with the State University of New York at Fredonia and a group from the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant program took samples from southern Lake Michigan in 2013, about 12% of the debris consisted of microfibers. Mason’s research also indicated that microfibers seem to be getting stuck inside fish in ways that other microplastics aren’t. Microbeads and fragments that fish eat typically pass through their bodies and are excreted. But microfibers were enmeshed in the gastrointestinal tracts of some fish Mason and her students examined. Their study helped confirm the bioaccumulative ability of these fibers to move up the food chain by finding fibers inside a double-crested cormorant, a fish-eating bird.

Solutions

So what are the solutions? There appear to be no easy answers. One way to begin to address the problem is to try to make clothes that shed less plastic fibers when washed. In 2013, Browne launched a new project “Benign by Design,” to help reduce the number of microfibers released into the oceans. Working collaboratively with designers to create fabrics that were more durable and released less plastic waste during wash cycles, this project could help stop the problem of microfiber pollution at the source.

Another way to address the problem is to reduce the amount of times synthetic clothing gets washed, and when need be, use washing machines with filters installed that catch the microfibers in the wastewater. Although filters are not a common feature in washing machines, some manufacturers do include them and filters are commercially available (see Filtrol 160 and Lint LUV-R). There are also filters that can just be thrown in with your laundry to help reduce the amount of shedding (see Guppyfriend) or catch plastic microfibers and other debris (see Coral Ball). It is also recommended to use front-loading, high efficiency washing machines instead of top-loading washing machines. The Bren School researchers found that top-loading washing machines released 7X more microfibers than front-loading washing machines; and the more you wash it, the worse it gets (aged jackets released almost 2X the amount as new jackets). When possible, avoid powder detergents and wash clothing at a low temperature.

The final place to catch microfibers before they are flushed to the ocean is at wastewater treatment plants. Although a typical secondary treatment plant will not do an effective job removing microfibers, plants that employ tertiary treatment to produce reclaimed water for non-potable uses typically use filtration which would remove microfibers. Wastewater treatment plants that use advanced treatment to produce potable water use microfiltration (as well as other technologies) which will also effectively remove microfibers. If wastewater is recycled and does not reach the ocean, the microfibers won’t get there either.

Visit Surfrider's Bills and Best Practices for Microfiber Pollution Solutions Coastal blog to learn about ways to reduce your microplastic and plastic microfiber release, and check out this video from The Story of Stuff that discusses the microfiber issue.
<html> <iframe width="980" height="511" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BqkekY5t7KY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> </html>

References and Additional Information Sources

A Human-scale Solution to the Biggest Plastic Pollution Problem Facing our Ocean:Synthetic Microfibers, Rozalia Project, 2014.

Accumulation of Microplastic on Shorelines Worldwide: Sources and Sinks, Environmental Science and Technology. 2011.

Anthropogenic debris in seafood: Plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption, Scientific Reports, 2015.

Carson, H. S., S. L. Colbert, M. J. Kaylor, and K. J. Mcdermid. "Small Plastic Debris Changes Water Movement and Heat Transfer through Beach Sediments." Marine Pollution Bulletin (2011): 1708-713.Rochman, C.M., E. Hoh, T.

Contaminants in Marine Plastic Pollution: the new toxic time-bomb’, National Toxics Network, 2016.

Dirty Laundry: Scientists Warn of Microfiber Pollution in Great Lakes, NBC News, 2015.

Fleeced again: How microplastic causes macro problems for the ocean, Grist, 2011.

From Spin to Sea: Polyester Microfibers Clog Our Beaches, Triple Pundit, 2014.

Great Lakes struggling with invisible threat of plastic microfibre pollution, The Guardian, 2015.

How much may German beers be contaminated by microplastics?, Science Daily, 2014.

Ingested plastic transfers hazardous chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress, Scientific Reports, 2013.

Inside the lonely fight against the biggest environmental problem you've never heard of, The Guardian, 2014.

Laundry Lint Pollutes the World's Oceans, Science Magazine, 2011.

Microfibers: How the Tiny Threads in Our Clothes Are Polluting the Bay, KQED Science, 2016.

Microfiber Pollution and the Apparel Industry, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, Patagonia, 2016.

Microplastic fibers in the intertidal ecosystem surrounding Halifax Harbor, Nova Scotia, PubMed, 2014.

Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human consumption, PubMed, 2014.

Mitigation of microplastics impact caused by textile washing processes, MERMAID project, 2016.

Oceans Teem with Tiny Plastic Particles, Scientific American, 2011.

Oyster Reproduction Is Affected by Exposure to Polystyrene Microplastics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2016.

Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, 2016.

Single clothes wash may release 700,000 microplastic fibres, study finds, The Guardian, 2016.

Small Plastic Debris Changes Water Movement and Heat Transfer through Beach Sediments, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2011.

Sussarellu, R., M. Suquet, Y. Thomas, C. Lambert, C. Fabioux, M. .. Pernet, N. Goïc, V. Quillien, C. Mingant, Y. Epelboin, C. Corporeau, J. Guyomarch, J. Robbens, I. Paul-Pont, P. Soudant, and A. Huvet. "Oyster Reproduction Is Affected by Exposure to Polystyrene Microplastics." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2016): 2430-435.

The Company Turning 4 Billion Plastic Bottles into Clothes, CNN Tech, 2016.

The Invisible Nightmare in Your Fleece, Outsideonline, 2015.

Your clothes are polluting the ocean every time you do laundry, Treehugger, 2014.

  1. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean, Jenna R. Jambeck, Roland Geyer, Chris Wilcox, Theodore R. Siegler, Miriam Perryman, Anthony Andrady, Ramani Narayan, and Kara Lavender Law, Science 13 February 2015: 347 (6223), 768-771.
  2. World Animal Protection. 2018. Ghosts beneath the waves: Ghost gear's catastrophic impact on our oceans, and the urgent action needed from industry.