Microfibre Fragmentation from Synthetic Textiles: A Guide for Apparel Brands
The release of plastic microfibres during the entire life-cycle of synthetic garments, particularly those made from polyester, poses a significant environmental challenge. These microfibres contribute to plastic pollution in aquatic ecosystems and can potentially affect human health. When designing and producing apparel, it is important to understand the sources, testing methods, and potential solutions related to microfibre shedding.
Understanding Microfibre Release
Microfibres are released from textiles in the various stages of the life-cycle due to mechanical stress and chemical degradation. The primary sources of microfibre fragmentation include:
• Fabric Production: Fibre loss can occur during the fabric manufacturing processes.
• Garment Use and Laundering: Everyday wear, through mechanical abrasion against the body and surroundings, washing and tumble drying cause fibres to break and release.
.• End-of-life handling: when mechanical recycling, landfilling, or incineration further release particles
Fibres are released into a variety of environments, including air, freshwater, soil, and marine ecosystems.
While recycled polyester offers environmental advantages by reducing waste, it may, in some cases, contribute more significantly to microfibre shedding. This is often due to shorter fibre lengths and changes in fibre structure resulting from the recycling process. Even mechanical recycling of plastic bottles, followed by melt-spinning, can lead to increased fibre fragility.
It is important to also understand that with the release of fibre into the environment it is not only the fibre itself that does the harm, but the full package of treatments the fibre has been exposed to during fabric manufacturing; for instance dyes and pigments, softeners and flame retardants, antimicrobial and repellency agents and other additives like detergents.
Testing Methods for Microfibre Release
Several testing methods exist to quantify microfibre shedding during washing. Some of the commonly used methods include:
• ISO 4484-1:2024 - Textiles and textile products — Microplastics from textile sources - Part 1: Filtration method - Determination of material loss from fabrics during washing
• TM333 - Shirley Technologies Microplastic Release Test
• AATCC 212 - Test Method for Fiber Fragment Release During Home Laundering
These tests involve washing fabric samples under controlled conditions and collecting the released microfibres for quantification using techniques such as filtration.
Further, the DIN SPEC 4872 - Standardized test method for the determination of the environmental impact of textiles during washing – fiber release · biodegradability · ecotoxicity
The above methodologies are embedded into the PEFCR, Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules, which is the EU’s LCA tool providing a comprehensive method for evaluating the environmental impact of a product. This is, however, subject to critizism as the methodology is not yet fully matured in scope, data stability, and validation and some argue that being in a state of research, it does not belong in regulation as it could lead to the wrong conclusions.
Comments on Microfibre Assessment Methodologies
Shivam Gusain, Water Engineer, Dyestuff Chemist & LCA analyst, is one of the voices in this critique as he highlights systemic flaws in current microfibre pollution assessments, particularly the narrow focus on laundering emissions and over-reliance on proxies like gravimetric analysis. These limitations align with broader research challenges:
1. Scope Narrowness: Gusain notes that assessments like PEFCR ignore shedding during wear, drying, and disposal. This mirrors findings that 35% of microfibres enter oceans via washing, yet industrial wastewater from manufacturing-often untreated-contains far higher concentrations.
2. Methodological Fragility: The reliance on gravimetric testing (mass-based) fails to distinguish fibre types or contaminants. Dynamic Image Analysis (DIA) and spectroscopic validation (e.g., FT-IR, Raman) are better suited for compositional specificity, but remain underutilized in policy frameworks.
3. Wastewater Treatment Gaps: Gusain emphasizes the exclusion of WWT efficacy, despite studies showing >90% capture rates in advanced systems. Ignoring this overstates marine impacts and undervalues infrastructure investments.
4. Behavioral & Geographic Variability: Fixed wash-frequency assumptions neglect regional practices. For instance, reusable polyester garments in low-wash contexts may outperform “sustainable” alternatives washed frequently.
Supplementing Gusain’s References with Key Research:
• Testing Methods: ISO 4484-1 (filtration) and AATCC TM212 provide standardized shedding metrics but lack chemical specificity.
• Mitigation Tech: McIlwraith et al. (2019) show filters (e.g., Lint LUV-R) reduce emissions by 87%, yet such solutions are absent from lifecycle models.
• Manufacturing Levers: Hohenstein’s DIA method quantifies pre-consumer shedding, enabling process optimization, while CSIRO advocates for filament yarns over staples.
Recommendations for Policy & Industry:
• Expand Scope: Integrate shedding across all lifecycle stages, including wear and disposal.
• Adopt Multimodal Testing: Combine gravimetric analysis with spectroscopic validation (e.g., µFT-IR) to reduce noise.
• Localize Models: Factor in regional WWT efficacy and consumer behavior to avoid skewed comparisons.
Gusain’s critique underscores a critical need: methodologies must evolve from isolated proxies to systems-aware frameworks that reflect real-world complexity. Until then, premature policy reliance risks greenwashing and misallocated resources.
Research Backing Microfibre Release
Research on microfibre release is supported by a combination of academic institutions, research organizations, and industry consortia. Key players include:
• Universities: Many universities globally conduct research on microfibre pollution, including studies on release rates, transport, and environmental impact.
• Research Institutes: Organizations such as CSIRO (Australia), SINTEF (Norway), and independent testing labs contribute significantly to the research landscape.
• The Microfibre Consortium: This industry-led group brings together brands, suppliers, and researchers to address microfibre shedding through collaborative projects and the development of practical solutions. Some of the industrial partners of Win-Win Textiles are part of the consortium and we have access to the latest research to help brands take considered decisions.
Continuous Filament vs. Staple Fibres
The statement that using continuous filament yarns as opposed to staple fibres would almost eliminate the release of microfibres is generally correct. Continuous filament yarns are made of long, unbroken fibres, which are less likely to break and shed during production and washing in the use phase compared to staple fibres, which are short and twisted together to form a yarn.
Research supports this claim:
• A study by the University of Plymouth found that fabrics made from continuous filament yarns released significantly fewer microfibres compared to those made from staple fibres.
• The Microfibre Consortium also promotes the use of continuous filament yarns as a strategy to reduce microfibre shedding.
Recommendations for Clothing Brands
To mitigate microfibre pollution, clothing brands can take the following steps:
1. Select Low-Shedding Materials: Prioritize the use of continuous filament yarns and tightly woven or knitted fabrics.
2. Optimize Fabric Construction: Work with suppliers to improve fabric construction and finishing techniques that reduce fibre loss. Focus on reducing the use of synthetic fibres and increase the use of natural fibres.
3. Check your Suppliers: Ask questions to your suppliers about their focus on waste water treatment in place to filter fragmented fibres in the production of fabrics.
4. Set Quality Standards: Establish internal quality standards for microfibre release in washing based on available testing methods. Legislation sets a restriction limit of 0.01% by mass (100 mg/kg). It’s important to note that this limit does not apply to microfibres released from textiles, as these are not banned—given that they are not intentionally added. What is prohibited is the intentional addition of microplastics and microfibres to certain products in order to give them specific properties (for example, fibrous particles are sometimes added to concrete to impart certain characteristics). That said, if you wish to begin a study on microfibre release, the 100 mg/kg value seems like a good starting point as part of setting quality standards.
5. Promote Consumer Education: Educate consumers on proper garment care practices, such as washing clothes less frequently, using colder water, using washing machines with microfibre filters, and using laundry bags designed to capture microfibres.
6. Support Research and Innovation: Invest in research and development of innovative solutions, such as biodegradable synthetic fibres and microfibre filters for washing machines.
By addressing microfibre shedding throughout the textile supply chain, apparel brands can reduce their environmental impact and contribute to a more sustainable future.
The Challenge We Can Help Resolve: Environmental Impacts of Microfibre Release from Synthetic Fabrics
Microfibre pollution from synthetic textiles, especially polyester, is a significant and growing environmental concern. These tiny plastic fibres are released throughout the lifecycle of garments-during production, use, laundering, and disposal-and have wide-ranging impacts on ecosystems and potentially human health.
Key Environmental Impacts:
• Aquatic Pollution: Synthetic microfibres are a major source of microplastic pollution in oceans, rivers, and lakes. Estimates suggest that washing synthetic textiles accounts for up to 35% of microplastics entering the oceans globally. In Europe alone, about 13,000 tonnes of textile microfibres are released into surface waters annually, representing 8% of total primary microplastic emissions to water.
• Persistence and Accumulation: Due to their non-biodegradable nature, synthetic microfibres persist in the environment for long periods, accumulating in water, soil, and air. They have been detected from the Arctic to the Antarctic, in seafood, and even in drinking water.
• Ecosystem Disruption: Microfibres can be ingested by aquatic organisms, including plankton, fish, and shellfish, leading to physical harm, reduced feeding, and potential transfer up the food chain to humans. Their small size allows them to be easily consumed and transported within ecosystems.
• Chemical Contamination: Microfibres can adsorb toxic chemicals and pollutants such as oils and persistent organic pollutants from the surrounding environment, acting as vectors for these substances and increasing their bioavailability to organisms.
• Soil and Air Pollution: Besides water, microfibres are also found in soil-often from the application of sewage sludge as fertilizer-and in the air, where they can travel long distances and be inhaled by animals and humans.
• Production and Wastewater Release: Significant microfibre loss occurs during textile manufacturing, especially in spinning, weaving, dyeing, and finishing processes. Industrial wastewater from textile mills can contain extremely high concentrations of microfibres, often exceeding those found in municipal wastewater. Inefficient treatment or mismanagement can lead to large-scale environmental contamination.
• Fast Fashion Impact: Fast fashion exacerbates the problem due to the high proportion of synthetic fibres used and the short lifespan of garments, resulting in more frequent washing and disposal, and thus higher microfibre emissions.
Conclusion
Microfibre pollution from synthetic textiles is a pervasive, persistent problem affecting water, soil, and air. It disrupts ecosystems, threatens wildlife, and poses potential risks to human health. Addressing this issue requires interventions at all stages of the textile lifecycle, from sustainable design and manufacturing to improved laundering practices and end-of-life management.
What Role Do Textile Manufacturers Play In Reducing Microfibre Pollution?
Textile manufacturers play a pivotal role in addressing microfibre pollution, as significant fibre shedding occurs not only during garment use and washing but also throughout the textile production process. Their actions can directly influence the amount of microfibres released into the environment at multiple stages.
Key Actions for Manufacturers:
• Process Upgrades and Innovation: Upgrading manufacturing processes-such as reducing abrasive friction during production, adopting alternative textile construction methods, and shifting from water-intensive wet processes to dry or low-water technologies-can significantly reduce microfibre release. Innovations in yarn and fabric design, such as using continuous filament yarns, also help minimize shedding.
• Wastewater Treatment: Installing and maintaining robust industrial wastewater treatment systems is critical. These systems can capture microfibres released during production before they enter waterways, especially in regions where plants are connected to advanced treatment facilities. Pre-washing fabrics at the manufacturing stage can also remove a substantial portion of loose fibres, which can then be filtered out in controlled settings.
• Product Design and Material Choices: Manufacturers can collaborate with brands to design textiles that shed fewer fibres, such as by optimizing fibre type, yarn structure, and fabric construction. While shifting towards natural fibres is one approach, it is important to note that not all natural or bio-based fibres are biodegradable, and some may still contribute to microfibre pollution.
• Collaboration and Research: Effective reduction of microfibre pollution requires close collaboration between manufacturers, brands, scientists, and innovators. Joint research initiatives and industry partnerships are essential for developing and scaling new solutions, sharing best practices, and accelerating the adoption of effective interventions.
• Compliance and Standards: Manufacturers are increasingly expected to comply with evolving environmental standards and regulations, including those related to microfibre emissions. Proactively adopting best practices and participating in the development of industry guidelines can position manufacturers as leaders in sustainability.
Challenges and Opportunities
• Manufacturers often face pressure to meet brands’ demands for low cost and fast turnaround, which can hinder investment in more sustainable practices. Collaborative approaches that share risks and rewards between brands and suppliers are necessary for long-term progress.
• More research is needed to fully understand the factors influencing microfibre shedding during production and to develop standardized testing and mitigation strategies.
Conclusion
Textile manufacturers are essential change agents in the fight against microfibre pollution. By investing in cleaner production technologies, robust wastewater treatment, and collaborative innovation, they can significantly reduce the industry’s environmental footprint and help protect ecosystems from the growing threat of microplastic contamination.
If you would like to dive deeper into this topic and see the sources of statements above, here are useful links:
Shivam Gusain’s article
Impact of quantification method on microfiber assessment
Tracking down textile microplastics
Tackling microfibre pollution through science, policy, and innovation
A simple guide to microplastics and test methods to measure microfibre release in textiles
Proposal for a measurement method for use in investigations of microplastics in tap water
A planet too rich in fibre
Weaving Solutions to Microfibre Pollution
Webpage of the Microfibre Consortium.
If you'd like to save this information or refer back to it later, you can download the full PDF here.
