We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Underestimation of Regenerated Cellulosic Microfibers in the Environment: Errors Introduced by Using Extraction Methods for Microplastics
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers discovered that common extraction methods designed for microplastics can damage regenerated cellulose fibers, leading to their underestimation in environmental samples. The study suggests that as production of regenerated cellulose fibers increases as a substitute for synthetic fibers, current analytical methods may significantly undercount their environmental presence.
Due to the rising concern about microplastic (MPs) pollution, production of regenerated cellulose fiber (RCFs), as a substitute for petrochemical-based synthetic fibers (SFs), has been increasing over the last decades. While RCFs are generally considered environmentally friendly, they are not necessarily biodegradable, and their occurrence and toxicity in the environment have previously been overlooked. The lack of suitable extraction methods for RCFs may be a crucial factor hindering research on their environmental effects as it remains largely unknown whether the extraction methods for MPs are applicable for RCFs. This study revealed that digestion reagents (such as Fenton’s and H2O2) and flotation salt solutions (such as NaCl, ZnCl2, etc.) commonly used for MPs separation cannot effectively recover RCFs. The digestion of RCFs in 30% H2O2 at 70 °C resulted in significant breakdown and dissolution. Moreover, the flotation efficiency of RCFs in various salt solutions was <30%. We propose using soybean oil as a flotation reagent, which can recover 99% of acetate cellulose and 69–85% of other RCFs. This study is the first to highlight the limitations of the current methods for separating RCFs from environmental media and to propose a feasible solution.
More Papers Like This
Underestimationof Regenerated Cellulosic Microfibersin the Environment: Errors Introduced by Using Extraction Methodsfor Microplastics
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers found that regenerated cellulosic microfibers—semi-synthetic particles from fabrics like viscose and lyocell—are systematically underestimated in environmental monitoring because existing identification methods misclassify them, meaning the true scale of environmental contamination by these fibers is likely much larger than reported.
Assessment of Microplastics in the Environment – Fibres: the Disregarded Twin?
AI summary Read the abstract
This paper argues that synthetic fibers are systematically underestimated in environmental microplastic monitoring because they are often excluded from sampling protocols. Since synthetic textiles are ubiquitous and shed fibers through washing and wear, ignoring fibers means current assessments substantially undercount total microplastic environmental pollution.
Chemometric discrimination of airborne fibres: microplastics, regenerated cellulose and natural fibres
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers measured airborne fiber concentrations across a variety of indoor and outdoor settings and used advanced analytical methods to distinguish between synthetic microplastics, regenerated cellulose, and natural fibers. They found that cellulosic fibers, often overlooked in microplastic surveys, frequently dominated particle counts in many environments. The study highlights the importance of identifying all fiber types in air quality assessments rather than focusing exclusively on synthetic plastics.
How regenerated cellulose fibers appear in the discourse on marine pollution with microplastic: a snowballing and network approach
AI summary Read the abstract
A systematic literature review using a snowballing-network approach investigated why some microplastic studies count regenerated cellulose fibers (like rayon and lyocell) as plastic pollution while others exclude them on the grounds that cellulose is biodegradable. The review found that the classification depends heavily on which research tradition authors follow, highlighting a significant inconsistency that complicates measuring true microplastic pollution levels in marine environments.
Microfibers in Life Cycle Assessment: Comparing the Physical Effects of Cellulosic and Synthetic Fibers via Characterization Factors Development
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers developed characterization factors for comparing the physical ecotoxicity of cellulosic and synthetic microfibers in Life Cycle Assessment, finding that despite high environmental abundance, cellulosic fibers had been previously excluded from LCA comparisons due to lack of species sensitivity data.
Research digests by email
When a large batch of papers lands in the Atlas, we read through it and send a short write-up of what stood out.