DGL Feature: Microplastic and natural fibres
ECG Bulletin July 2024
Microplastics (MPs) are one of the most well-known types of environmental pollution. A MP is any piece of plastic smaller than 5 mm (about the size of a circle on top of a Lego® block), and MPs come in a variety of shapes including beads, fragments, and fibres. These particles can be eaten by even the smallest animals, blocking their gastrointestinal tracts. MPs are also known to introduce chemical pollutants to the environments they pollute.
MP fibres (e.g., polyester, nylon, acrylic) are frequently recorded as the most abundant particle shape in environmental surveys of MP pollution and are associated with greater toxicological effects than other MP shapes. These fibres enter the environment primarily during the manufacturing and the washing of textiles made from plastics. Natural fibres (NFs) (e.g. cotton and wool) are therefore often promoted as greener and biodegradable alternatives to MP fibres. However, an emerging field of environmental science is now starting to look for both natural and plastic fibres and is consistently finding that >70 % of textile fibres in the environment are natural, not plastic.[1,2]
The pathways of NFs to the environment are the same as MP fibres, and NFs have been recovered from aquatic archaeological sites centuries after their introduction to the environment, raising questions over the timescales of their biodegradability.[3] Moreover, processing NFs for textiles involves extensive chemical and mechanical manipulation, producing fibres that are fundamentally unnatural.[4] For example, mercerisation, a common treatment of cotton for textiles, including denim, changes the natural cellulose I polymer from the cotton plant to cellulose II – a polymer which is rarely found in nature.[5] Despite this, concern for the environmental impacts of NFs lags far behind that of MP fibres.
It is vital that efforts to improve the sustainability of the fashion and textile industry are accurate and well-informed, necessitating a thorough assessment of the environmental behaviour and impacts of NFs. This represents a considerable gap in our understanding of anthropogenic particles in the environment. However, this environmental science must also recognise its social context. The relationships between different fashion industry stakeholders, and their concerns about the impacts of industry change on consumers, have been identified as key systemic barriers to minimising pre-consumer textile fibre pollution.[6] Being able to make environmentally informed fashion choices is also an economic privilege that is not available to everyone. To truly understand the problem of textile fibre pollution (natural or plastic), and inform enduring improvements to textile sustainability, therefore relies on truly interdisciplinary research spanning the environmental and social sciences.
The application of the Precautionary Principle to microfibre pollution has promoted natural over plastic fibres, across the textile industry, but the environmental sciences are starting to suggest that this is not the correct strategy. Thorough scientific investigation of natural fibres as pollutants is urgently needed to inform sustainability within the textile industry, but this science must be sensitive to the social environment and context of fashion’s environmental footprint if it is to realise positive industrial and social change.
It is vital that efforts to improve the sustainability of the fashion and textile industry are accurate and well-informed, necessitating a thorough assessment of the environmental behaviour and impacts of NFs. This represents a considerable gap in our understanding of anthropogenic particles in the environment. However, this environmental science must also recognise its social context. The relationships between different fashion industry stakeholders, and their concerns about the impacts of industry change on consumers, have been identified as key systemic barriers to minimising pre-consumer textile fibre pollution.[6] Being able to make environmentally informed fashion choices is also an economic privilege that is not available to everyone. To truly understand the problem of textile fibre pollution (natural or plastic), and inform enduring improvements to textile sustainability, therefore relies on truly interdisciplinary research spanning the environmental and social sciences.
The application of the Precautionary Principle to microfibre pollution has promoted natural over plastic fibres, across the textile industry, but the environmental sciences are starting to suggest that this is not the correct strategy. Thorough scientific investigation of natural fibres as pollutants is urgently needed to inform sustainability within the textile industry, but this science must be sensitive to the social environment and context of fashion’s environmental footprint if it is to realise positive industrial and social change.
References
1. T. Stanton, M. Johnson, P. Nathanail, W. MacNaughtan and R. L. Gomes, Science of The Total Environment, 2019, 666, 377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.278.
2. G. Suaria, A. Achtypi, V. Perold, J. R. Lee, A. Pierucci, T. G. Bornman, S. Aliani and P. G. Ryan, Sci. Adv., 2020, 23. https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay8493.
3. R. Chen and K. A. Jakes, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 2001, 40, 91. https://doi.org/10.2307/3180024.4. S. M. Ladewig, S. Bao and A. T. Chow, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2015, 49, 12609. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04754.
5. T. Stanton, E. Stanes, C. Gwinnett, X. Lei, M. Cauilan-Cureg, M. Ramos, J. B. Sallach, E. Harrison, A. Osborne, C. H. Sanders, E. Baynes, A. Law, M. Johnson, D. B. Ryves, K. J. Sheridan, R. S. Blackburn and D. McKay, J. Clean. Prod., 2023, 428, 139391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139391
6. Forum For The Future, Three transitions, one opportunity to transform for a just and regenerative future. https://www.forumforthefuture.org/ourstrategy. (Access July 2024)
1. T. Stanton, M. Johnson, P. Nathanail, W. MacNaughtan and R. L. Gomes, Science of The Total Environment, 2019, 666, 377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.278.
2. G. Suaria, A. Achtypi, V. Perold, J. R. Lee, A. Pierucci, T. G. Bornman, S. Aliani and P. G. Ryan, Sci. Adv., 2020, 23. https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay8493.
3. R. Chen and K. A. Jakes, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 2001, 40, 91. https://doi.org/10.2307/3180024.4. S. M. Ladewig, S. Bao and A. T. Chow, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2015, 49, 12609. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04754.
5. T. Stanton, E. Stanes, C. Gwinnett, X. Lei, M. Cauilan-Cureg, M. Ramos, J. B. Sallach, E. Harrison, A. Osborne, C. H. Sanders, E. Baynes, A. Law, M. Johnson, D. B. Ryves, K. J. Sheridan, R. S. Blackburn and D. McKay, J. Clean. Prod., 2023, 428, 139391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139391
6. Forum For The Future, Three transitions, one opportunity to transform for a just and regenerative future. https://www.forumforthefuture.org/ourstrategy. (Access July 2024)
