Microfibre Pollution: How Can We Stop It?

Why should we care about microfibre shedding now? Microplastics (of which synthetics are some) have been found in human brains, testicles and placentas. At this point, it's endemic. And we have no idea of the problems it may bring us. So it makes sense we should be doing something to limit that. But how?

The one thing that I can tell you, with absolute certainty! Is that most microfibres are shed over the production process. We can talk about consumer laundering until the cows come home! But that is not the most polluting part. (Which is not to say the washing machine lobby were right to  pressure legislators to not mandate filters in machines. That was absolutely the wrong thing to do. But not because of water pollution. Rather because of what we do with the slurry that microfibres find their way into our food and soil systems).

So, what can we do about it?

Firstly, the choice of fibre makes a difference. The longer the fibre the less likely it is to shed. Using a fibre that is less likely to break during wear and laundering is also better. For example, using branded Lycra over standard elastane will improve the longevity of the fabric (if you have to use stretch at all, of course!). Some generic elastanes don't last long before they start to fray out of the yarns. Unfortunately research has also shown that mechanically recycled polyester fibres shed more than virgin ones. Mainly because they aren't as long. Unfortunately, not much research has been done on what cocktail of fibres produces more, or less, fibre shedding. Most research focuses on compositions of 100%, mainly cotton or synthetic. Research released last year looked at the impact of adding a small amount of elastane to polyester fabric. That research concluded that just by adding a small percentage of elastane, more microfibres were released during laundering than if it had been a 100% polyester fabric. 

The size and twist of a yarn also makes a difference, using a finer yarn with a higher twist will reduce the amount of shedding, the twisty simply by holding the fibres in, while a finer yarn has less friction and room for fibres to move against each other. The method you use to spin the yarn also has an impact on how many microfibres are released. A study I read a couple of years back found that ring and compact spinning were better for cotton in terms of fibre release, but for synthetics air jet was better than ring spinning. In all instances open end spun yarns were the worst for microfibre release. I'll give you 3 guess which one of these processes is the cheapest!

You guessed it, open end spun is the cheapest. Open end spinning often results in a fabric that pills more too. Something that is worth keeping in my when the PEF (product environmental footprint as part of the ESPR) rears its ugly head again. If a fabric has a terrible pilling rating, you can kinda conclude that it's shedding lots of microfibres! Acrylic fibres are the worst for microfibre release because they are open end spun

When it comes to fabric, we don't have a lot of information to take on. Especially when you factor in how little is know about how fibre blends impact shedding. We also can't agree whether woven fabrics or knitted fabrics release more! Although, again, that seems down to fibre type with polyesters shedding more in wovens than knits, but it being the other way around for cottons. 

This, I'm afraid, is where I roll my eyes at Polartec's ShedLess technology (and yes they've trademarked that!). Having had the opportunity to review the process in-depth as part of an award, what I will say is that there is nothing revolutionary about this. They use everything in this email and that's it. In fact, as one esteemed colleague said to me; "they're just making fleece how you should be making it in the first place"! But, if you're in outdoor and don't have the capacity to make these changes, then it's going to be a pretty great buy.

How we dye and finish our fabrics also has an impact on how many microfibres are released. Any stress put on the fibres weaken them. Be that combing, brushing or dyeing at high temperatures (there is even a study that shows how increasing the domestic wash temperature of a fabric increases the amount of microfibres released). The less stress we put a fibre / yarn / fabric under during these processes, the less they are likely to release. But without having done the work up to this point with fibres and yarns, really you're just tinkering at the edges. Equally, but the same logic that says the more you wash something, the more fibres are released, then that same logic would apply to the colours you chose. The darker the colour, the more dye baths needed to achieve the required shade, the more microfibres released.

Something that this report did throw up that I didn't know beforehand is that laser cutting or ultrasonic cutting showed much less fibre shedding than conventional cutting. Great news for those in the cutting room who may have the "poly lung" cough (I don't actually know if this was a thing, its certainly something many of us would refer to at Dewhirst after cutting PV fabrics all day!). Although the report did not mention how sewing is likely to impact microfibre release. Every time a needle goes into a fabric, you are puncturing it. So logically you could make the assumption that the more you puncture something, the more likely it is that it's going to shed. How that could impact over different stitch types does not seem to have been studied as far as my Google searching has been able to tell. 

So how does this all work when all the factors we want to be using more of are more expensive, but we're all still in a race to the bottom?

This is where we're going to need to "take a view" on things. Price and microfibre wise, it would be more cost effective to use conventional cotton (they have longer staple yarns than organic) and ring spin them. If you want to have a certified organic product, then it's worth using Cradle to Cradle dyes on lighter colours and spin in in the open end method. Good marketing will help feedback on what your customer values. The first option will last longer (with the right care) and the latter will be better for the environment. 

This also solves some of our price problem. I always come back to what Nicola Torreggiani from Guess said; which is that it's very difficult to justify a price difference on a pair of jeans for just organic cotton. But if we have them the same price, one is designed to be worn for longer, and the other is better for water and soil. Consumer choice is easier. And we don't want to be splitting these sales forever of course, eventually you are going to want to drop one and consolidate. If you know your customer well, then those choices are already an easy one. 

A lot of what brand's miss in their marketing these days is using education to inform customers of why their products are better. Stopping microfibres shedding out out clothes does make them last longer, and you can test for it to ensure you're operating within the Green Claims Code. Unfortunately, it's very evident that a lot more research needs to be done in this sector to help us make better choices. But we have enough information to start, and direct comparisons in order to be able to test. I just wouldn't do it on blends yet.

Before I started this article, someone hoped on my Linkedin post to comment that this was being regulated under the ESPR, EPR and DPP. Which sounded completely wrong to me, because the EU are not anti business. In fact, quite the opposite. So obviously I had to dig into that!

Before we dig in, there is a word of caution I want to give. The EU legislation is guidance to the courts. It's the courts that set the precedent, which becomes the foundations of law. A good example of this is the GPSR. There were some UK industry bodies advising brands that they had to hold the same information for their licensed product as their own products. I advised a brand that this was simply not the case, but that they should have a strong contract that set out standards and compliance responsibility. Only last month a court within the EU set the precedent for the procedure I suggested. The sole reason that I could be so confident in my answer is that it would make it impossible for businesses to license brand names, and would put that sector out of business within the EU. And that is the same reason I can be so confident about the comment saying microfibres are being regulated. That would be anti business.

Now, that's not to say that is always going to be the case. We know that the EU is committed to tackling the microplastics crisis. But, most of that, as Veronica Bates Kassatly rightly pointed out, is packaging, and not fabrics. Then there is another pillar of the textile waste strategy that addresses plastic pellet loss. There's a beach in Scotland that is covered in them. The point at which they've solved that crisis, we may well find ourselves at the end of a stick. I would wager thats a long way off and we will have improved our processes by then. Although, as plastics, that only relates to synthetics. Which, as it stands from the end of last year, studies on microfibre release from these fabrics has only been conducted on mono-component fabrics. There is only one that addresses a blend, and thats polyester elastane. With elastane in only small quantities. Nothing like you would get in a pair of compression tights, for example. What the researchers found though, was that adding elastane increased the amount of polyester microfibres that were released during laundering. But with only one study, all we can conclude is; more research needs to be undertaken around blends. And, as the EU has committed to using "the best available evidence and analysis" when setting requirements. There just isn't enough available. 

It's easy to forget that a few years back the EU did say they wanted microfibre filters within washing machines. I was surprised to learn later that there is in fact a washing machine lobby! And they had that goal rolled back. The apparel industry is an amalgamation of many industries, processes and stages. Microfibres is either an everyone problem, or it's a no one problem. The washing machine industry don't get to wash their hands of this (terrible pun!) while we are regulated. 

What about the EPR? The EPR guidance (because remember, nothing if fully finalised yet), is that a garment made from fully recycled product will have met it's commitment to EPR (it'll actually be less than that, but we don't know the % as yet). Multiple studies have concluded that mechanically recycled polyester sheds more microfibres than virgin. No one is going to be implementing legislation where one cancels out the other. 

Now, the DPP is where it could get tricky. Especially around Green Claims. Microplastic (note, plastic not fibre) release is one of the 'requirements to improve', and one of the measureables as part of DPP. But, if you aren't claiming it, you don't have to report on it. Although, technically, again, that's something we won't know for sure until the end of this year as part of the fully implemented DPP for 2030. It 100% won't be part of DPP 'lite' in 2027. 

And, as if we needed any further evidence, it has been found that cellulose and cotton fibres can be just as polluting as microplastics. They don't degrade either. As detailed by jeans still intact on the Titanic! And that was before synthetic indigo dye took over. I simply haven't addressed the largest plastic contaminant of all; dyestuffs and finishes. That has a huge impact on biodegradability. For which we need to be addressing water, soil and landfill, as each one has different parameters.  

Is your brain about to explode yet?! If not, let's quickly delve into REACH!

REACH is being updated, alongside labelling requires. Now, I know this feels exhausting, but not everyone is applying to everyone all at once. And we will most likely see the rest of the world align with the EU on this, under the DPP scheme, if it proves successful. Synthetics are going to come under increasing scrutiny, and they are "substances of concern", meaning they are either carcinogenic, endocrine disrupting, persistent, mobile and toxic. And often negatively effects the recycling of materials within which it is present. There has to be a bloody good performance reason for using it. But I've said this before; there is no good reason to have a printed floral dress made out of polyester, but you do want your climbing jackets, riding breeches or cycling bibs made out of polyamide. 

Finally, biobased synthetics....

Because they also shed micro plastics. And they are persistent, mobile and negatively effect recycling (because in material form, they are not drop in solutions). Under EU guidance biobased plastics are preferred to oil derived ones. Just don't be making any claims about reducing micro plastics without verifying that first!

Let me know if you plan on making any changes to how you design and develop product to factor in microfibres. And don't forget, if you want some help developing circular products like this, head over to the About page to see the work we do!