We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Are We Underestimating Anthropogenic Microfiber Pollution? A Critical Review of Occurrence, Methods, and Reporting
AI summary Read the abstract
This critical review examines whether anthropogenic microfiber pollution is being underestimated due to inconsistent research methods and reporting practices. Researchers found that natural and semisynthetic fibers like cotton and wool, which are often excluded from microplastic counts, contain chemical additives that make them persistent environmental contaminants. The study argues that all anthropogenic microfibers, not just synthetic ones, should be included in pollution assessments for a more accurate picture of contamination levels.
Anthropogenic microfibers, a ubiquitous environmental contaminant, can be categorized as synthetic, semisynthetic, or natural according to material of origin and production process. Although natural fibers, such as cotton and wool, originated from natural sources, they often contain chemical additives, including colorants (e.g., dyes, pigments) and finishes (e.g., flame retardants, antimicrobial agents, ultraviolet light stabilizers). These additives are applied to textiles during production to give textiles desired properties like enhanced durability. Anthropogenically modified "natural" and semisynthetic fibers are sufficiently persistent to undergo long-range transport and accumulate in the environment, where they are ingested by biota. Although most research and communication on microfibers have focused on the sources, pathways, and effects of synthetic fibers in the environment, natural and semisynthetic fibers warrant further investigation because of their abundance. Because of the challenges in enumerating and identifying natural and semisynthetic fibers in environmental samples and the focus on microplastic or synthetic fibers, reports of anthropogenic microfibers in the environment may be underestimated. In this critical review, we 1) report that natural and semisynthetic microfibers are abundant, 2) highlight that some environmental compartments are relatively understudied in the microfiber literature, and 3) report which methods are suitable to enumerate and characterize the full suite of anthropogenic microfibers. We then use these findings to 4) recommend best practices to assess the abundance of anthropogenic microfibers in the environment, including natural and semisynthetic fibers. By focusing exclusively on synthetic fibers in the environment, we are neglecting a major component of anthropogenic microfiber pollution. Environ Toxicol Chem 2022;41:822-837. © 2021 SETAC.
More Papers Like This
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.
Marine environment microfiber contamination: Global patterns and the diversity of microparticle origins
AI summary Read the abstract
This review examines microfiber contamination in marine environments globally, noting that both synthetic and non-synthetic fibers are common pollutants but that non-synthetic fibers are routinely undercounted in studies. The authors argue that focusing only on synthetic microplastics understates the true scale of microparticle pollution entering the ocean.
All that glitters is not plastic: the case of open-ocean fibres
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers analyzed open-ocean textile fibers and found that a significant proportion are not synthetic plastics but rather natural fibers such as cotton and wool, challenging the assumption that all environmental fibers constitute microplastic pollution. This study calls for more precise characterization of fiber types in environmental monitoring to accurately assess plastic versus non-plastic contamination.
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.
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.
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.