We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Impacts of non-petroleum and petroleum-based microfibers on aquatic organisms: a meta-analysis
AI summary Read the abstract
This meta-analysis compared the toxic effects of petroleum-based and non-petroleum microfibers on aquatic organisms. Surprisingly, natural fibers like cotton and viscose also caused significant biological harm, not just synthetic ones like polyester and nylon. This means that even "natural" textiles shed fibers that can damage aquatic ecosystems, complicating the assumption that non-synthetic clothing is automatically safer for the environment.
Contamination of aquatic ecosystems with microfibres (fibres < 5 mm in size) shed from textiles and other consumer items is a global conservation concern. While generally considered to be less persistent compared to petroleum-based materials, the relative ecotoxicological impact of non-petroleum microfibres is understudied. Here, we present the first meta-analysis to compare the ecotoxicity of petroleum-based and non-petroleum based microfibre classes on aquatic organisms. Data were extracted from 38 eligible microfibre ecotoxicological studies (472 suitable endpoints) and both non-petroleum and petroleum-based microfibre classes had overall significant biological effects on organisms. Many polymers had significant negative biological impacts including cotton, viscose, asbestos, polyester and polypropylene exposures although non-petroleum exposures were underrepresented within the literature (non-petroleum = 89, petroleum-based = 383 endpoints). Mixed effects models comparing effect sizes within polymer classes for different microfibre (response, concentration, size etc) and organism subgroup levels (taxonomic grouping and environment) found mostly non-significant with fewer negative biological responses for non-petroleum (2/30; 3/27 when excluding glass and asbestos exposures) compared to petroleum-based exposures (27/48). Additionally, positive biological effects were observed for non-petroleum microfibre exposures within Plantae, for microfibres 501-2000 µm in length as well as at microfibre doses of 101-103 µg L-1 when excluding glass and asbestos exposures. Considering the observed ecotoxicological impacts of both microfibre classes, we suggest complementary better-by-design approaches combined with best management practices to reduce the shedding, accumulation and residence time of microfibres of all categories within aquatic ecosystems.
More Papers Like This
Beyond plastics: occurrence and ecological risks of non-plastic microfibres in aquatic organisms
AI summary Read the abstract
This systematic review highlights that non-plastic microfibres from cotton, wool, and rayon clothing are also widespread pollutants in aquatic environments. These fibres, often overlooked in favor of plastic pollution, carry chemical additives and accumulate in aquatic organisms, suggesting the microparticle problem in our food chain is broader than previously thought.
Eco-friendly or eco-threat? The environmental risks of natural and semi-synthetic fibers
AI summary Read the abstract
This review examines emerging evidence that natural and semi-synthetic textile fibers (cotton, viscose, wool) contribute significantly to environmental microfiber pollution, comparable in scale to synthetic fibers. The authors challenge assumptions of negligible ecological impact and call for natural and semi-synthetic fibers to be included in microplastic pollution assessments.
Are 'natural' textile fibres environmentally benign? A systematic review of chemical processing and microfibre pollution
AI summary Read the abstract
That "natural" fabrics like cotton and rayon are eco-friendly may be a myth: this review of existing studies shows that heavy chemical processing during manufacturing changes these fibers so much that the tiny threads they shed can pollute and persist in the environment much like plastic microfibers do. Since these "natural" microfibers have largely been ignored by researchers and regulators—who focus mainly on synthetic microplastics—we may be underestimating our overall exposure to fiber pollution in water, soil, and potentially our bodies, meaning your "eco-friendly" cotton t-shirt might not be as harmless as
Are 'Natural' Textile Fibres Environmentally Benign? A Systematic Literature Review of Chemical Processing and Microfibre Pollution
AI summary Read the abstract
That "natural" fabric labels like cotton and rayon might give you a false sense of security: this review of existing research shows that heavy chemical treatment during manufacturing can make these fibers shed particles that are just as persistent and potentially harmful as synthetic microplastic fibers, not the harmless, biodegradable bits we assume them to be. Since these "natural" microfibers are showing up everywhere in the environment (in water, soil, and likely our food and bodies) but get far less scientific attention than plastic microfibers, this research suggests we need to start treating them as a comparable health and pollution concern rather than giving them a free p
Clothes Encounters of the Microfibre Kind
AI summary Read the abstract
This review examines how natural, semi-synthetic, and synthetic textile fibers enter the environment and affect organisms and ecosystems, highlighting that fiber type influences toxicity and persistence. The authors conclude that textile fibers are an underappreciated category of microplastic pollution with diverse ecological effects.
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.