Zhang 2021

Green Chemistry
View Article Online

CRITICAL REVIEW View Journal | View Issue
Microplastics from textile origin – emission and

Cite this: Green Chem., 2021, 23,
reduction measures†
5247
Ya-Qi Zhang, a Marianna Lykaki,a Mohammad Taher Alrajoula,b
Marta Markiewicz, a Caroline Kraas,c Sabrina Kolbe, d Kristina Klinkhammer, d
Maike Rabe,d Robert Klauer,e Ellen Bendtd and Stefan Stolte*a

Published on 16 June 2021. Downloaded on 8/31/2021 7:32:17 PM.
Fibrous microplastics (FMPs) are ubiquitous worldwide, existing from lands to oceans and from surface
waters to sediments. Ingestion and toxic effects of FMPs have been detected in organisms. FMPs released
from synthetic textiles during laundering are thought to be a large source contributing to the current
overall load of microplastics (MPs) in the environment. Given the fast growth of the synthetic textile
market and the continuing emission of FMPs, this review aims to present measures to reduce FMP emis-
sions to the environment. To achieve this aim, we summarise existing data and knowledge about FMPs to
elucidate (a) the definition of FMPs, (b) FMP release during textile washing and influencing factors, and (c)
FMP retention in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) at different treatment stages and subsequent
emission to the aquatic environment. Based on the existing data, we estimate that the annual release of
FMPs from synthetic textile washing is in the range of 50.6–1180 kg per 100 000 population. Such release
Received 6th May 2021, might lead to an overall emission of 2.53–59 kg FMPs per year via WWTP discharges (serving 100 000
Accepted 15th June 2021
residents) to the receiving waters assuming a 95% WWTP removal efficiency. To this end, proactive solu-
DOI: 10.1039/d1gc01589c tions and suggestions are studied to avoid and reduce the release and emission of FMPs, considering
rsc.li/greenchem reduction, reuse, recycling and end-of-pipe strategies.
Microplastics from textile origin lower dimensional limit proposed by the ECHA is 0.1 µm
(ECHA, 2020).9 Moreover, MPs are restricted to particles of
Microplastics certain polymer compositions. The ECHA has proposed that
Plastic pollution has become a global concern due to its ubi- synthetic polymers should be included in the definition of
quitous occurrence as well as its potential negative impacts on MPs.9 Hartmann et al. recently published recommendations
the environment and human health.1–3 In recent years, micro- for the definition and categorisation of plastics.10 This frame-
plastics (MPs) have been regarded separately from bulk plas- work suggests that, in addition to conventional plastic poly-
tics considering their unique release potentials and environ- mers such as polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), and poly-
mental impacts,4–6 which are driven by their smaller size. The ethylene terephthalate (PET), other polymers, such as in-
maximal dimension of MPs is often defined as 5000 µm organic polymers, heavily modified natural polymers, bio-
according to the American National Oceanic and Atmospheric based polymers (e.g., bio-PET) and biodegradable polymers
Administration (NOAA),7 the European Commission (EC, (e.g., polylactic acid, PLA) should be included.10 In both
2017)8 and the European Chemical Agency (ECHA, 2020).9 The approaches, natural polymers that have not been chemically
modified are excluded from the scope.9,10
In addition to classification according to dimension and
a
Institute of Water Chemistry (IWC), Technische Universität Dresden, Berg Str. 66, composition, MPs can be defined in terms of their production
01069 Dresden, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] mode into two types: primary and secondary MPs.2 As com-
b
Association of the German Sporting Goods Industry, Adenauerallee 134, 53113
monly understood, primary MPs are plastic products in the
Bonn, Germany
c
World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF) Germany, Reinhardtstr. 18, 10117 Berlin, micrometre range formed intentionally via industrial
Germany processes.11,12 They mostly include polymer pellets,13,14 abra-
d
Research Institute for Textile and Clothing (FTB), Faculty of Textile and Clothing sive scrubbers,11 and microbeads for cosmetic products.13,15
Technology, Niederrhein University of Applied Science, Webschulstr. 31, 41065 Secondary MPs are mainly derived from the fragmentation of
Mönchengladbach, Germany
e larger plastics or primary MPs driven by environmental pro-
VAUDE Sport GmbH & Co. KG, i-team, 88069 Tettnang, Germany
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: 10.1039/ cesses, e.g., biological degradation, chemical decomposition
d1gc01589c and mechanical breakdown.12,13
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021 Green Chem., 2021, 23, 5247–5271 | 5247
View Article Online
Critical Review Green Chemistry
Fibrous microplastics made organic fibres (Fig. 1, upper grey box) are usually clus-
tered into fibres formed by the transformation of natural poly-
Primary and secondary MPs are widely detected in the environ- mers and fibres made from synthetic polymers.17 Man-made
ment and appear in a variety of shapes, including beads, frag- fibres derived from natural polymers may be further classified
ments, films, and fibres. Fibrous microplastics (FMPs), repre- into regenerated and chemically modified fibres. Regenerated
senting a unique group of MPs in view of their shape, specific fibres such as viscose, lyocell and modal are achieved by dis-
dimensions, potential sources of release and environmental solving a material such as wood pulp and making it into
abundance, have drawn increasing attention in recent years. fibres, while in the case of acetate fibres, cellulose polymers
To improve our understanding of the aforementioned aspects are chemically modified by a method such as acetylation and
and to achieve improved monitoring and management, a con- treated as synthetic fibres. Synthetic fibres also include a very
sensus on the definition of FMPs is urgently needed. large group of materials that are manufactured from synthetic
Dimension of FMPs. Among all the considerations regarding polymers, e.g., polyester (PES), polyamide (PA), PP, and poly-
the definition of MPs, dimension and composition must acrylic (PAN).
always be specified as their values may vary for different types At this point, synthetic fibres can be grouped into those
of MPs. As proposed by the ECHA (2020), fibrous MPs are MPs made from polymers of petrochemical origin (e.g., PES, PA, PP)
with a maximal length of 15 mm and a ratio of length to dia- and those derived by chemical modification of natural poly-
meter >3.9 Existing studies confined their investigations mers (e.g., cellulose acetate). Fibres made out of biopolymers
mostly to FMPs of a length up to 5000 µm. Moreover, accord- (bio-based or/and biodegradable) such as PLA also have to be
ing to the ECHA, at least two dimensional factors, i.e., length considered as a source for FMPs. Since they are emerging and
and diameter, are needed for the classification and character- a niche material group they are not expected to contribute to
isation of MP shape. It is suggested to characterise FMPs by the existing FMPs in the environment to a large extent but it
providing at least the two dimensions and stating the third might change in the future. Considering this definition, par-
dimension if the cross section is not circular. ticles shed from synthetic textiles16 made of e.g., PES, PA, PLA
Composition of FMPs. Fibres present in the environment can and cellulose acetate can be considered MPs, while particles
be natural or man-made. Natural fibres are generated from shed from cellulosic and regenerated cellulosic textiles
natural sources16 and can be plant-based (e.g., cotton, flax, cannot.18 Not every existing study describing detected FMPs
hemp or other cellulosic fibres), animal-based (e.g., wool or differentiates well among natural, regenerated, and synthetic
silk, composed of proteins), or inorganic-based (e.g., asbestos, fibres. This lack of distinction may lead to misleading esti-
composed of silicate minerals). Man-made fibres can be in- mations regarding the emission and environmental concen-
organic (e.g., carbon, glass or metal fibres) or organic.17 Man- trations of FMPs. In the present review, we use the term
Marta Markiewicz (PhD) is leader of the Contaminant Science

junior research group at the IWC of the Technische Universität
Dresden.
Caroline Kraas is a project manager for WWF Germany focusing
on the environmental impact of (micro-)plastics and prevention
strategies.
Sabrina Kolbe (PhD) is a research associate working on the
enzymatic influence on polyester.
Kristina Klinkhammer (PhD) is a research associate working on
textile functionalisation.
Ya-Qi Zhang, Marianna Lykaki, Mohammad Taher Alrajoula,
Prof. Maike Rabe is professor for Textile Finishing and Ecology,
Marta Markiewicz, Caroline Kraas, Sabrina Kolbe, Kristina
and head of the FTB at the Niederrhein University of Applied
Klinkhammer, Maike Rabe, Robert Klauer, Ellen Bendt, and
Sciences.
Stefan Stolte (from upper-left in the order of authorship).
Robert Klauer (M.Sc.) investigates the reduction of fibre shed-
Ya-Qi Zhang (PhD) investigates environmental risk of emerging ding and biodegradation of microplastics from textiles.
pollutants and manages microplastic research at the IWC of the Prof. Ellen Bendt is a fashion designer and professor for
Technische Universität Dresden. Fashion Design/Knitwear & Innovative Product Design at the
Marianna Lykaki (M.Sc.) is a doctoral candidate investigating Niederrhein University of Applied Sciences.
environmental behaviour and fate of microplastics. Prof. Stefan Stolte is chair of Hydrochemistry and Water
Mohammad Taher Alrajoula (M.Sc.) is an environmental and Technology and director of the IWC at the Technische Universität
water quality researcher and representative of the German sport Dresden.
textile industry.
5248 | Green Chem., 2021, 23, 5247–5271 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021
View Article Online
Green Chemistry Critical Review

Fig. 1 An overview of FMPs released from different source materials and products and their emissions and transport pathways to the environment.
Release can occur during the entire lifetime of textiles, including production, wearing, washing and end-of-life. Consequently the fibres may enter
the environment via, e.g., air deposition, leaching from landfills, and WWTP discharges. The scheme includes a life cycle assessment considering
management, monitoring and mitigation strategies in terms of environmental sustainability. *“Synthetic textiles”: 100% synthetic textiles or textiles
composed of synthetic/non-synthetic fibres; “Man-made” is a simplified term for the sub-group of organic man-made fibres. WWTP: wastewater
treatment plant. PA: polyamide, PES: polyester, PLA: polylactic acid. PP: polypropylene.
“FMPs” to refer to synthetic fibrous microparticles with with a diameter in the micro range but cannot be categorised
lengths of 0.1 µm–15 mm and a ratio of length to diameter as FMPs due to their non-synthetic nature. Therefore, it is
greater than 3. important to discriminate that “microfibres” are not necess-
FMPs shed from synthetic textiles are often treated as sec- arily equivalent to FMPs, even though there is a certain overlap
ondary MPs.2,19 There are, however, studies treating shed FMPs in dimensions between the two terms.
(e.g., during washing) as primary MPs12,14,20 because their gene-
ration during the use phase is considered not to be driven by
environmental processes. In this context, secondary MPs are Environmental occurrence and effect
smaller FMPs that are degraded or fragmented from the original of fibrous microplastics
shed fibres.16 However, in this review, the authors consider
shed fibres from synthetic textiles to be secondary FMPs and FMPs have been found widely in high abundance in urban
synthetic textiles or fabrics to be the primary plastic products. environments such as in-house25,26 or wastewater treatment
Notably, the term “microfibres” is frequently used in plants (WWTPs),28,29 as well as in natural environmental com-
several studies to describe fibre-shaped MPs.19,21,22 In the partments involving freshwater,25,29 seas,30,31 soils,3,32 and
textile industry, this term is commonly used to specifically air,33,34 and remote ice and polar regions.35,36 FMPs have also
define a fibre type that has a fineness less than 1 dtex,23 been detected as the dominant MP type in many field samples,
namely a linear density of 1 g/10 km. Hence, to some extent, such as those obtained in sea and river surface waters, sedi-
this term reflects the diameter rather than the length of a ments and coastal areas.16 The wide range of detection con-
fibre. For instance, microfibres with a round cross section and ditions imply the ubiquitous distribution of FMPs throughout
a fineness between 0.3 and 1.0 dtex generally correspond to a global ecosystems. Depending upon the environmental com-
diameter of 5–10 µm. However, such microfibres can poten- partment, FMP concentrations span several orders of magnitude
tially be formed as very thin and continuous filaments with a from much less than 1 item per L, which mostly occurs in
length of kilometres, which clearly cannot be considered MPs. surface waters,29,31 to hundreds or thousands of items per kilo-
In regard to composition, fibre products such as pima cotton gram in sediments37,38 and soils32 or per m2 in air fallout.26,33
fibres (3–4 µm in diameter) and New Zealand merino wool Ingestion of FMPs is widely observed in aquatic organisms
fibres (11 µm in diameter),24 can be treated as microfibres such as the copepod Calanus finmarchicus,39 marine fish
View Article Online
species,40 and the water flea Daphnia magna41 and in terrestrial

organisms such as the snail Achatina fulica.42 The ingestion of
fibres is accompanied by adverse effects, which include
reduced feeding,39,42 abnormal development,39 neurotoxicity,40
oxidative damage40 or stress,42 tissue damage42 and mor-
tality.41 Furthermore, the presence of airborne FMPs and their
detection in human lung biopsies highlight the potential
hazard of fibre intake through inhalation.43
It is not yet clear whether FMPs of a comparable size (in
length) to regular MPs are more bioavailable than other MP
types to organisms given their smaller size in other dimen-
sions (diameter) or are less bioavailable due to the tendency to
form flocs. However, FMPs are thought to lead to environ-
mental impacts greater than those derived from regularly
shaped MPs due to their higher potential to be retained in
organisms by forming larger fibre flocs and their larger

surface areas for the absorption of harmful substances.25 In
addition, exposure of the water flea Ceriodaphnia dubia to a
mixture of PES fibres and PE beads revealed mortality rates Fig. 2 World production of fibres estimated for the year 2018, compris-
fitting to independent action rather than a concentration ing synthetic (blue), natural (green) and man-made cellulosic (lake blue)
addition model.44 The findings may suggest that FMPs have a fibres. Different fibre types in specific fibre groups and their production
toxic mode of action different from that of regularly shaped volume in percentage are shown separately in blue, grey, or green in the
pie chart. Adapted figures were produced using data from the Bremer
MPs, although the potential effects of different polymer
Baumwollbörse summarised by the Discover Natural Fibres Initiative
materials need to be clearly identified. (DNFI, February 2019).47 The production of different synthetic polymer
MPs generally act as vectors of chemicals45 and patho- types (blue pie chart) was sourced from DNFI.48
gens,46 and additive-associated toxicities due to chemical
leaching may also be exhibited by FMPs, although identifying
the effects requires concrete investigations. Particularly consid- annually,30 reaching a total production volume of over
ering that synthetic fibres in textile industries are often subject 80 million tons by 2025.52
to functionalisation, such as surface coating and dyeing, the
potential influences cannot be neglected. Synthetic textiles
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN,
Sources of fibrous microplastics 2017) has suggested that synthetic textiles are one of the most
relevant sources of MPs in the oceans in view of their high
FMPs that occur in the environment and exert environmental ranking in terms of plastic consumption (2nd out of 7), covering
impacts can have different sources of origin (Fig. 1). 12% of the total global consumption (300 million tons).12
Identifying these sources and quantifying the subsequent Emissions of FMPs are assumed to happen during all phases in
emissions are important to reduce FMP pollution. the life cycle of synthetic textiles, including production53 (in
manifold products), laundry,54,55 use (e.g., wear56 and weather-
Fibre production ing in applications57) and disposal (Fig. 1). IUCN’s proposal esti-
mates that the release of FMPs from synthetic textiles ranges
Global fibre production reached 111 million tons in 2018, con-
from 0.74% w/w to 5% w/w (with a median of 2%) throughout
sisting of synthetic fibres (65%), natural fibres (29%), and
the textile life cycle.12 A report by the Umweltbundesamt (UBA,
man-made cellulosic fibres (6%) (Fig. 2).47 In the synthetic
German Environmental Agency) states that the NOVA Institute
fibre sector, PES had the largest share accounting for 84%,
estimated annual textile-derived MP emissions in the range of
while the remaining synthetic fibres consisted mainly of
80–400 tons in Germany.58 Different sources of synthetic textiles
nylon, acrylic and PP (Fig. 2).48 Moreover, the production of
in various processes might contribute to the environmental
PES increased with an estimated compound annual growth
load of FMPs, such as technical textiles (e.g., construction and
rate (CAGR) of 7% was reported by Globe Newswire (October
agriculture), home textiles (e.g., bed linen, blankets, cleaning
2019).49 The total demand for PES in the textile industry is
rags, carpets), and garment (e.g., sports goods and clothes)21
anticipated to exceed 60 million tons by 2025.50 Driven by
(Fig. 1, textile products box).
increasing demand for various applications as well as growing
world population and growing standards of living, the market
for synthetic fibres is assumed to rapidly continue growing.51 Synthetic textile washing
In this context, the production of synthetic fibres in general is Among the manipulations in the lifetime of synthetic textiles,
anticipated to increase at a rate of over 9 million tons textile washing has drawn particular public interest and
View Article Online
environmental concern in regard to FMP release. Fibre shed- differences in the test textiles (materials, ageing, processing,
ding that occurs during washing can be driven by mechanical etc.), washing procedures, and analytical methods (e.g.,
stirring and abrasion. In 2017, the IUCN proposed that fibres detected size fractions). A major problem for a reliable data
released during the laundering of synthetic textiles are the comparison lies in the variety of test methods from regular
largest source for the global emission of MPs into the oceans, washing to different quick tests and laboratory setups, and the
showing a contribution of 35%.12 The Fraunhofer UMSICHT lack of material standards as one of the problems has been
Institute analysed 74 environmentally relevant sources of MPs tackled only within last few years. Nevertheless, a trend of FMP
and estimated that FMPs originating from synthetic textile release can be derived from the available data.
laundering are ranked 10th in the list of top 10 FMP sources The studied fibres in these washing tests were mainly in a
(with an emission of 76.8 g per person per year).59 The esti- size range of 20–5000 µm (in length in view of measurement
mations were, however, based on many assumptions and on and mesh sizes). Most detection values in the washing effluent
analytical data that are incomplete or hard to compare in from the first wash ranged from 0.0012 to 0.042% w/w,
detail. although FMP shedding rates as low as zero were also reported
Despite the different approaches, criteria, and measure- (Table 1).
ment scales, as well as the potential shortcomings that are To estimate FMP release, several parameters for calculation
involved in source ranking, synthetic textile washing has been were derived: (1) only the summarised data for released
considered an important source of FMPs in the masses in the first washing cycle from regular washing test
environment.54,60,61 Washing synthetic textiles is also thought were adopted (i.e., 0.0018–0.042% w/w, Table 1). This general
to be one of the main sources of MPs in WWTP influent.62 It range of released amounts is partially overlapping with the
was estimated that textile washing contributes at least 70% of IUCN’s report (2017), in which the number of washes per
the fibres that drain to WWTPs,22 from whence they can reach capita, wash load (4 kg), and regional population were con-
the environment. sidered to extrapolate the FMP release rate, with a value of
Numerous studies have quantified the FMPs released 0.03–0.15% w/w per wash;12 (2) on average a person consumes
during washing and sought to understand the factors in the approximately 5.5 kg new textiles per year (see the calculation
entire process that may affect FMP release and the resulting in ESI, ESI-S1†). Since on average a person generates approxi-
direct emissions or discharges via WWTPs. Different mately 5.0 kg household laundry per week (according to
approaches for fibre quantification and characterisation, and laundry practices in Germany),67 therefore the abovemen-
for assessing the effects of washing conditions, release mecha- tioned masses of new textiles being washed once per week was
nisms, WWTP removal, etc. have been applied in existing assumed; (3) subsequent washing cycles after the first wash
investigations, leading to different results and conclusions. often release fewer fibres, leading to the mass of released
The following sections of the review aim to summarise and FMPs decreasing to approximately 1/4 (in the 4th wash),54 1/10
discuss the existing information and studies on FMPs released (in the 5th wash),68 or 1/10–1/20 (in the 10th wash)65 of that
from synthetic textiles, particularly focusing on laundry, to found in the first wash (Table 1); (4) after 10 successive wash-
understand the following: ings FMP release rate usually become constant.65 Hence, the
- the quantity of FMPs shed from synthetic textiles during annual fibre release per 100 000 population can be estimated
textile washing; (see ESI-S1†). The values fall in the range of 50.6 to 1180 kg
- the retention and emission of FMPs in WWTPs in FMPs (Table 1). Taking into account German population leads
different treatment stages; to a total amount of FMP release of 42–979 tons per year—a
- the biodegradation of shed fibres; range of emission similar to that reported by UBA, i.e., 80–400
- the analytics of FMPs; and tons in Germany.58
- related regulations on the global and/or European scale Furthermore, the proposed laundry rate of 5.0 kg per week
for the reduction and management of MP pollution. per person estimated based on an avg. 3.3 kg per wash for
On this basis, proactive measures that can be taken to help Germany,67 is comparable to that estimated for Europe (3.7 kg
avoid and reduce the continuing emission of FMPs to the per wash);69 so that the estimation can be applied to many
environment are proposed at the end. other European countries.
An annual release of FMPs was also estimated for “fast-
fashion” to represent a possible “worst-case” scenario, that
Release of fibrous microplastics from new textiles were washed once during use and subject to dispo-
textile washing sal. An amount of release 10 times higher as the abovemen-
tioned case was estimated, showing 515–12 012 kg per year per
Release estimation 100 000 population (see ESI-S2†).
Studies evaluating fibre release during textile washing (includ-
ing regular and simulated washing) are listed in Table 1,
showing the amount of fibres shed on a % w/w garment or Parameters influencing fibre release in textile washing
fabric basis. The mass of shed FMPs varies widely among A series of factors related to textile properties and washing pro-
studies. This variation is nonetheless not surprising given the cedures influence the quantity of shed FMPs. Understanding
Table 1 Results of studies on fibre shedding (% w/w, mainly synthetic) during regular washing in front-load mode or in domestic washing simulation tests. Only results for the washing of new
textiles are listed. The overall fibre amount shed per year (in kg per year) per 100 000 population is estimated
Estimated release [kg

Washing condition Textiles and fabrics Fibre size or filtration [µm] Fibre release [% w/w] per year] References
Regular washing
Critical Review
40 °C PES T-shirts, blouse (100% 400, 60, 20, 5 (avg. length 0.0049–0.0308 (after the 1st wash) 138–866 De Falco et al.
107 min PES) 360–660, diameter 12–16) (2019)61
1200 rpm top (PES, cotton, and modal
With DL blend)
40 °C PES fleece shirt (100% PES) Nylon mesh: 20 0.46a (total for 4 wash cycles) n.c. Folkö (2015)63
30 min a
Sport sweater (57% PA plus 0.1 (total for 4 wash cycles) n.c.
5252 | Green Chem., 2021, 23, 5247–5271

1400 rpm
43% PES)
No detergents
29–41 °C PES fleece jackets or pullover Nylon filters: 20 and 333 0.005–0.036 (20–333 μm) 141–1012 Hartline et al.
48 min (100% PES or blended with 3% (after the 1st wash) (2016)22
1200 rpm Spandex) 0–0.042 (>333 μm) (after the 1st wash) 0–1180
No detergents Nylon jackets (100% nylon)
0.018 (20–333 μm) (after the 1st wash) 506
0 (>333 μm) (after the 1st wash) 0
13–15 or 30 °C PES T-shirts (100% PES) Microsieve and filter paper: 0.011 (no DL) (after the 1st wash) 309 Kelly et al. (2019)54
30, 59, or 85 min 20 and 22 th
0.0043 (no DL) (after the 4 wash) n.c.
600 or 1600 rpm
0.0087–0.021 (DL) (after the 1st wash) 245–590
With/without DL
0.0037–0.0055 (DL) (after the 4th n.c.
wash)
30–40 °C PES/PA sportswear Sieve: >63 0.0018 50.6 Klasmeier & Wissing
Max. 1400 rpm (2017)64
PES fleece winter jacket 0.0089 250
With DL (PES and PAN)
30 °C PES fleece blankets (100% PES) Stainless steel filter: 200 No detergents or softeners: 450 Pirc et al. (2016)65
15 min (length 300–25 000, in avg. 5000, 0.016 (after the 1st wash)
600 rpm diameter 10–15)
With/without DL or
softener 0.001 (after the 10th wash) n.c.
With DL: 0.01 (after the 1st wash) 281
0.001 (after the 10th wash) n.c.
With DL and softener: 0.019 (after 534
the 1st wash)
0.001 (after the 10th wash) n.c.
View Article Online
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

Green Chemistry
Table 1 (Contd.)
Estimated release [kg

Washing condition Textiles and fabrics Fibre size or filtration [µm] Fibre release [% w/w] per year] References
Simulated washing
Linitest apparatus: PES fabrics (100% PES): Polyvinylidene fluoride W: 0.0012 33.7 De Falco et al.
40 °C plain weave filter (5 μm) (2018)66
Green Chemistry
45 min length 340 (avg.) DL: 0.0092 259

10 steel balls diameter 14 (avg.) DP: 0.0255 717
With/without DL, DP
PES fabrics (100% PES): Length 478 (avg.) W: 0.0013 36.5
double knit jersey diameter 20 (avg.) DL: 0.0235 661
DP: 0.0399 1122
PP fabrics (100% PP): plain Length 339 (avg.) W: 0.0017 47.8
weave diameter 19 (avg.) DL: 0.0057 160
DP: 0.0146 410
Washtex-P Roaches Interlock fabric (100% PES) Filter paper (0.45 μm): 0.0025 (no detergents) 70.3 Hernandez et al.

laboratory washing Jersey fabric (PES and 2% <1000 (95%–98%) (2017)62
machine: Spandex) 0.01 (with detergent) 281
40 °C
45 min
40 rpm
10 steel balls
With/without DL, DP
a
The total fibres released from each two garments after certain wash cycles. “n.c.”: not calculated because the value was not from the first wash cycle; “W”: water; “DL”: liquid detergent;
“DP”: powder detergent. For fabrics that were stated as synthetic/natural fibre blends, we consider the released fibres as synthetic fibres given the synthetic nature of the original products.
PA: polyamide; PAN: polyacrylonitrile; PES: polyester; PP: polypropylene.
View Article Online
Green Chem., 2021, 23, 5247–5271 | 5253

Critical Review
View Article Online
these factors can facilitate measures regarding the mitigation outcome was attributed to the increased friction between the
of FMP emissions from textile origin. fabric and powder and the pH effects introduced by the
Washing cycle and time. In general, the amount of fibres detergent.66
released during washing decreases with sequential washes However, Hernandez et al. found no significant differences
(Table 1). A washing test using PES fleece shirts and PES-PA in fibre shedding between liquid and powder detergents, and
blended sportswear demonstrated that the fibre mass four times more fibres were released (100% PES textiles,
decreased to 50% compared to the first wash after 4 and 2 0.45 μm filtered) when using detergent than when not
wash cycles, respectively.63 In another study, the fibre mass (washing at 40 °C for 45 min at 40 rpm).62 Nonetheless, the
decreased by a factor of as high as 10 after four cycles of same authors observed that using detergents (liquid or
washing (PES T-shirt) relative to the first wash (Table 1).54 A powder) shifted the emission to smaller FMPs, with the
similarly high relative reduction in fibre release was also found majority having a size smaller than 1 mm.62
in studies from Sillanpää & Sainio68 and Pirc et al.65 after 5 A correlation between shedding amount and applied deter-
and 10 washing cycles, respectively (Table 1). Pirc et al.65 gent dose was also found. Surfactants were thought to play the
additionally pointed out that during 10 successive washings main role in fibre shedding, as they are the fundamental active
(PES fleece blankets), the emission rate eventually stabilised at component in detergents.62 The amount of fibres increased
0.00108 wt% (no detergents or softeners), 0.0014 wt% (with with the addition of surfactants at doses up to 0.75 g L−1 (an
detergent), and 0.0012 wt% (detergent and softener). equivalent concentration to that recommended by producers
Klasmeier & Wissing assumed that the decrease in fibre shed- of household detergents); however, no further release was
ding was a result of the mechanical abrasion of additional detected when the dose was increased to 1.5 or 2.25 g L−1. In
fibres from the textile surface becoming more difficult with contrast to the findings mentioned above, Pirc et al. did not
each washing cycle.64 find a significant influence of detergent (0.00108 vs. 0.00140%
In contrast, a constant fibre shedding rate with an average w/w without and with liquid detergent (Table 1) on FMP
of 0.025 mg fibres per g fabric (PES interlock fabric, 0.45 μm release from PES fleece blankets.65
filtered) over five subsequent washes was detected (washing at In addition, in contrast to the effect of detergents, the pres-
40 °C for 45 min at 40 rpm).62 The potential effect of washing ence of softeners decreased fibre shedding, which was attribu-
duration on fibre shedding was investigated by the same ted to the reduced friction between fibres during washing
authors with washing times of 1, 2, 4, and 8 h, but no signifi- caused by the softeners.66 However, Pirc et al. did not find a
cant changes in the amount of fibres were shown.62 The significant reduction in fibre shedding by using softeners.65
authors therefore indicated that the repetitive mechanical The different findings may be due to the different components
stress of washing did not contribute significantly to the con- and doses of the test detergents and softeners, as well as the
tinuous release of more fibres over time.62 The inconsistent different washing programs used; however, it is difficult to
trends of fibre release among studies in relation to washing extrapolate without more detailed information.
cycles might be mainly due to the different textile textures Temperature. Hernandez et al.62 and Zambrano et al.71 did
(fleece vs. interlock knitting), the force mechanisms in the not observe significant changes in fibre release from textiles
washing procedure (regular washing vs. simulated washing), made of 100% PES when the temperature varied between 25
and the analytical differences such as the degree of separation and 80 °C (0.45 μm filtered) or between 25 and 44 °C
in filtration. (25–200 μm) (washing in Launder-Ometer canisters with or
Detergent and softener. Using detergents seems to promote without liquid detergent for 16 min). No differences were
fibre release.21,66,70 PES fleece and microfleece (featuring found in the study from Klasmeier & Wissing, wherein PES
knitted terrycloth produced by mechanical napping and/or fleece jackets were washed at 30 and 40 °C (63 μm filtered with
cutting) released in maximum approximately 1500 fibres/ liquid detergent).64 However, De Falco et al. observed that fibre
100 cm2 fabrics per wash (25–3000 µm) with detergent, nearly shedding (with liquid detergent) increased by approximately
three times more than the amounts released during washing 500 more fibres per gram fabric (PES, 5 μm filtered) when the
without detergents (washing in a GyroWash at 60 °C for temperature was raised from 40 °C to 60 °C.66 The authors
30 min).70 Such increases were also recorded in the report explained that this increase was due to the increased surface
from Åström et al. (with 7360 vs. 4120 fibres per L per m2 hydrolysis of PES fabric at higher temperatures in the presence
fabric with and without liquid detergent, respectively; fleece of alkaline detergent.66 Therefore, the specific effect of increas-
from PES and non-specified polymers, 1.2 μm filtered, ing temperature in this study is not completely clear. The
washing in a GyroWash at 60 °C for 30 min)21 and De Falco effect of temperature may need to be investigated by consider-
et al. (1273 vs. 162 fibres per g fabric with and without liquid ing a wider range of fabrics in terms of materials and surface
detergent, respectively; PES, 5 μm filtered, washing in a structure.
Linitest apparatus at 40 °C for 45 min).66 Detergents are Water hardness. A higher amount of fibres was detected
thought to reduce the surface tension of textiles, thus promot- when the total water hardness was increased to 27 °dH
ing fibre shedding.70 Additionally, in De Falco et al.’s study, an (German degree of water hardness, 4.8 mmol Ca2+ per L),
even higher shedding rate (3538 fibres per g fabric) was which was attributed to the additional induced fabric abrasion
observed when a powder detergent was applied.66 The introduced by the water.66 It is worth noting here that the
View Article Online
degree of water hardness varies drastically among regions and types, which may be explained by the cutting of the surface of
countries from soft to very hard and might influence fibre the yarn during manufacturing21 and the surface roughness of
release. fleeces, which feature plush structures on the surface.64
Washing machine type. Washing PES jackets in a top-loader Furthermore, fabric structures characterised by a high knitting
led to much higher fibre emissions than those obtained with gauge (i.e., high density of fibres over the same fabric area) are
front-load washing (the emission of 20 μm filtered fibres was prone to shed more fibres.70 Additionally, more fibres (5 μm
419–526 vs. 25–122 mg; that of 333 μm filtered fibres was filtered) were released from woven ( plain weave) than knitted
1119–1475 vs. 0–58 mg).22 This result was thought to be (double knit jersey) PES textiles, caused by the denser yarn
caused by the more vigorous stirring mode in top-load than composition in the former fabric structure.66
front-load washers.22 It was also proven that washing at a Zambrano et al. compared fibre shedding (25–200 μm)
higher spin-dry rate promoted fibre release.68 Therefore, it among natural, regenerated and synthetic fabrics with a
seems that the speed and extent of agitation during washing framed structure (i.e., knitted), and they found that natural
enhance fibre release if their rates are high enough. Kelly et al. (cotton) and regenerated (viscose) fabrics released many more
assembled a setup with tergotometers and Lab Colour Space fibres than PESs (2–4 mg g−1 vs. 0.25–0.5 mg g−1) during
to monitor the number of fibres shed in relation to agitation washing.71 This result was assumed to be due to the lower
and water volume.54 In this method, fibre numbers can be fabric abrasion resistance (indicated by the higher weight loss
extrapolated using a regression correlation with the changes in of the fabrics under testing with a Martindale Abrasion Tester)
colour (e.g., lightness) recorded by Lab Colour Space.54 They of cotton and viscose than their synthetic counterparts.71
found that a high water-volume-to-fabric ratio rather than agi- Nevertheless, the authors further explained that cotton fabrics
tation made the most difference, and washing machines with a hairier surface (i.e., more free fibres protruding from
loaded with a lower water volume were thought to be helpful the yarn within a certain distance from the fabric surface)
to reduce fibre shedding.54 would be subject to increased surface friction and piling.71
Drying. Drying procedure commonly following washing This statement again highlights the role of fabric surface con-
exacerbates fibre shedding. Pirc et al. detected a greater figuration in fibre shedding, as discussed above for fleeces.
amount of FMPs (PET fleece, 300 μm–25 mm, diameter 10 μm) The same authors also explained the shedding mechanisms by
released during drying than washing by a factor of approxi- summarising the sequential shedding steps for knitted tex-
mately 3.5.65 In this context, the internal filters located in tiles, which comprised fuzz formation (loose fibres with the
dryers could be another source of FMPs in the environment if end extending out of the fabric surface), swelling, fibrillation,
they are not properly disposed of.20,55 Air-drying was found not pill formation (fibre entanglement) and pill wear off.71 Fuzz
to affect the quantity of fibre release.62 formation was considered the decisive step, and the shedding
Textile aging. Aged garments (PES fleece, mechanically aged tendency was dependent on the abrasion resistance and fabric
via a 24 h no spin-agitation wash cycle) released an average of hairiness.71
25% more fibres than new textiles during washing (no deter- Furthermore, PES and PP fabrics made of staple yarns (with
gents).22 In particular, fibres larger than 330 μm showed lengths of 35 and 50 mm, respectively) have been reported to
increased shedding from 0–0.011 wt% to 0.024–0.041 wt%.22 shed more fibres (with an average length 340 μm) than do
The authors assumed that the observed fraying on the gar- fabrics made of filaments.66 Due to the smaller length of
ments had led to the increases.22 Carney Almroth et al. also staple yarns than filament yarns, the former slip off more
found that re-polished (to mimic worn and torn clothes) PES easily from textiles.66
fabrics released more fibres (25–3000 µm, with liquid deter- Other properties. It is worth noting that chemical processes
gent) per wash than did non-polished fabrics, showing such as bleaching, dyeing and finishing carried out during
maximum amounts of approximately 80 fibres/100 cm2 and 20 manufacturing have been considered to influence fibre shed-
fibres/100 cm2, respectively.70 ding.62 Furthermore, the fibres detected in washing effluent
Textile structure and surface configuration. In a washing test might partially come from fibre residues that are simply
with PES fleece and microfleece, 932–1210 fibres/100 cm2 attached to the surface rather than an inherent part of the
fabric (25–3000 µm) were shed, while for knitted textiles (PES, textile matrix. The harsh mechanical stress during yarn spin-
PAN or PA), only an average of 9 fibres/100 cm2 fabric was ning in manufacturing can break down fibres; consequently,
observed.70 In another study, 100% PES fleece shirts released these fibres stay embedded in the yarns but can be washed out
FMPs summed to a total of 0.46% w/w (20 µm filtered) after 4 later.62 The contribution of these fibres to the eventual quanti-
washing cycles, which was 4 times more than that released fication of shedding in textile washing tests, particularly when
from sports sweaters (0.1% w/w, made of 43% PES and 57% new textiles are used, has not been sufficiently considered in
PA).63 An additional study found that fleece and microfleece current studies.
shed the largest amount of fibres (1.2 µm filtered), amounting The different and sometimes opposite conclusions among
to 4120 and 7360 fibres per m2 fabric, respectively, regardless studies, as well as various uncertainties, particularly regarding
of synthetic polymer type (PAN, PA or PES) or whether deter- the effect of washing cycles, detergents/softeners and washing
gents were used.21 These findings indicate that fleece-based temperatures, suggest the need to investigate parameters
garments might release more fibres than many other textile under standardised conditions. For a reliable comparison
View Article Online
between textiles or fabrics made of different polymers, it is section to discuss the data where necessary. More details on
important to clarify the textile structure and texture, the the sizes and compositions of the particles in the respective
washing settings and the components of detergents/softeners studies can be found in Table 2.
used in testing. Standardised analysis is required in which Before more deeply discussing the reviewed data, it should
fibre size should be clearly specified at least in two dimensions be noted that variations in the design, techniques, and pro-
in order to improve data quality for fibre quantification. cesses of operation in WWTPs will lead to different outcomes
regarding overall particle retention as well as retention in
various stages. Moreover, the resulting estimates are derived
Fibrous microplastics in WWTPs: from existing studies in which analytical limitations for the
influent, retention, and effluent characterisation of particles in terms of dimensions and
material origins may not be ruled out. Therefore, this section
Fibrous microplastics in influent mainly provides a preliminary discussion on FMP retention
Fibre shed during textile washing are directly discharged to and the removal efficiency of WWTPs based on the available
sewers to WWTPs, and from there, they can reach the environ- data. Further estimations should be developed in accordance
ment. To simplify the following extrapolation, we presume that with specific WWTPs and local conditions.
FMPs generated during laundering will be entirely transported Conventional wastewater treatment steps that can be very
to WWTPs via domestic effluent. In accordance with the relevant to the removal of FMPs include buoyancy-based pro-
studies and reports shown in Table 1 (50.6–1180 kg per year), a cesses, e.g., screening, grit treatment, and grease removal,72 as
daily release rate within 0.14–3.23 kg FMPs from textile well as adsorption and settling with solids.73 Primary treat-
washing is estimated for a population of 100 000, and these ment is mainly mechanical ( physical) and is usually composed
fibres are assumed to enter the sewer system and finally reach of gravity settlement, flotation, and surface skimming or
WWTPs. screening. The majority of microparticles are retained in this
stage, with the majority of the studies showing a retention
Retention of fibrous microplastics in WWTPs ranging from 78% to >99% relative to the original input
A typical WWTP usually consists of different treatment steps (Table 2). Skimming and co-settlement of MPs with primary
carried out by physical, chemical and biological processes con- sludge are thought to be the main mechanisms of
stituting a sequential treatment process. These steps generally removal.73,74 However, some proportion of FMPs are still able
include primary and secondary treatment stages, and a tertiary to pass through this stage and flow into subsequent treatment
stage is also included in many WWTPs (Fig. 3), in which the stages.
treatment methods used vary among facilities. Microparticles in the primary effluent can mostly be
Table 2 presents the removal of FMPs in view of their reten- decreased by 1% to 20% after secondary treatment (Table 2).
tion at different wastewater treatment stages. The table entries Adding a biological filtration step after secondary sedimen-
are annotated to indicate whether the reported FMP removal tation removes 5% more microparticles (Table 2).74 In contrast,
values also consider MPs of other shapes or whether the extra biologically active filters (BAFs, designed to improve
sample is a mixture with natural materials. To avoid compli- nitrogen removal via microorganism activity on packed poly-
cated descriptions, we use the term “microparticles” in this styrene (PS) beads) in this stage result in no significant
Fig. 3 Sketch showing the transport pathway and removal of FMPs originated from e.g., textile washing, by passing through the primary, secondary
and tertiary treatment in a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Black arrows show the transport of primary and activated sewage sludge within the
system. The amount of FMPs in the WWTP effluent can vary considerably (red question mark) in numbers or masses. MBR: membrane bioreactor.
Table 2 Abundance of FMPs (including mixed materials) in the influent and effluent of each treatment stage, showing the removal rate (R) values in the primary “P”, secondary “S”, and tertiary
“T” stage in WWTPs. The removal rate in a given stage is presented relative to the MP amount in the influent (for samples whose details were not clearly indicated or that were sampled after
screening, the values are shown in brackets, “()”). The particle concentration was not determined for all WWTP stages in all studies. In cases such data was lacking, the removal in a given stage
was calculated relative to the content in the primary effluent or relative to the discharged value from the previous stage (in these instances, the data are shown in square brackets, “[]”)
Primary (P)
Size range Influent [particles R. Secondary (S) Tertiary (T) R.
Green Chemistry
Studies WWTPs [μm] Polymers [particles per L] per L] [P, %] [particles per L] R. [S, %] [particles per L] [T, %]
Bayo et al. Cabezo Beaza 200–5000 LDPE, HDPE, acrylate, n.a. 2.59 n.c. 0.31 [88.0] n.a n.c.
(2020)28 WWTP, Cartagena, (manly in PP, PEP, PS BPL, nylon,
Spain 400–600) PUR, PET, MCR, PTFE,
MMF, PES, PVC, PIB,
rubber
Cabernard 28 WWTPs, Kanton 8–5000 n.a. n.a. 90 n.c. 40 [55.6] 22 (3 WWTPs with [75.6]
et al. (2016)81 Zurich, Switzerland (mainly in membrane
8–300) filtration)
Conley et al. Plum Island WWTP, 60–178, PES, acrylic, PES-cotton 92b n.a. n.c. 2.8b 97.0 n.a. n.c.

(2019)84 South Carolina, USA 178–418, blend
>418
Rifle range WWTP, 82b n.a. n.c. 15.6b 81.0 n.a. n.c.
South Carolina, USA
Center Street WWTP, 93b n.a. n.c. 14b 85.0 n.a. n.c.
South Carolina, USA
Dris et al. Seine-Centre WWTP, 100–5000 n.a. 260–320 50–120 84.4 14–50 (no fibres in 95.6 (max.) n.a. n.c.
(2015)85 Paris, France 1000–5000 µm
range)
Echelpoel Destelbergen, Ghent, <15, 15–35, Mixed synthetic and (14b) 11b 21.4 9 35.7 n.a. n.c.
(2014)86 Belgium >35 natural
Lares et al. Kenkäveronnie-mi, 25–5000 PES, PET, PE, PA, PP (52.6) 0.3 99.4 0.5 No
(2018)29 Mikkeli, Finland improvement
— n.c. 0.2 (MBR pilot) 99.6
Kazour et al. Edelweiss, Le Havre, <20, 20–80, PS, PE (dominant) 61 n.a. n.c. n.a. n.c. 1.14 (unknown 98.1
(2019)87 France 80 –200, type)
200–500,
>500
Magnusson & Långeviksverket ≥300 μm PE, PP, aliphatic PES 10.7 n.a. n.c. 0.004 >99.9 n.a. n.c.
Norén (2014)88 WWTP, Lysekil, resin
Sweden
Mintenig et al. Oldenburg, Germany 20–500 PA, PP, PES n.a. n.a. n.c. 0.9 n.c. 0.02 (pile fabrics) [97.8]
(2017)79
Murphy et al. Glasgow, Scotland Avg. 598 PES, PA, PP, acrylic, 15.7a (avg. 3.4a 78.3 0.25a (avg. 18.5% 98.4 n.a. n.c.
(2016)72 alkyd, PE, PS, PET 18.5% fibres) fibres)
Michielssen Detroit, USA 4750, 850, Mixed synthetic and 495b n.a. n.c. 3.58b 99.3 n.a. n.c.
et al. (2016)77 300, 106, 20 natural
View Article Online
Green Chem., 2021, 23, 5247–5271 | 5257

Critical Review
Table 2 (Contd.)
Primary (P)
Size range Influent [particles R. Secondary (S) Tertiary (T) R.
Studies WWTPs [μm] Polymers [particles per L] per L] [P, %] [particles per L] R. [S, %] [particles per L] [T, %]
Northfield, USA 200b n.a. n.c. n.a. n.c. 5.25b (granular 97.4
Critical Review
sand filtration)
200b n.a. n.c. n.a. n.c. 0.47b (AnMBR) 99.8
b b b
Talvitie & Central WWTP of 300, 100, 20 Mixed synthetic and 467 33 92.9 16 96.6 n.a. n.c.
Heinonen Vodokanal, Helsinki, natural
(2014)89 Finland
Talvitie et al. Viikinmäki, 200, 100, 20 Mixed synthetic and 180b 14.2b 92.1 13.8 b 92.3 n.a. n.c.
(2015)74 Helsinki, Finland natural
5258 | Green Chem., 2021, 23, 5247–5271

4.9 (with biological 97.3 n.a. n.c.
filtration)
Talvitie & Viikinmäki, 20–≥300 Cotton, PES (33%), linen, 636.7a,b (Mon.) 14.2a,b 97.8 1.0a,b 99.8 n.a. n.c.
Mikola et al. Helsinki, Finland viscose, wool, PAL 686.7a,b (Wed.) 10.9a,b 98.4 1.3a,b 99.8
(2017a)75 380a,b (Sat.) 9.9a,b 97.4 2.0a,b 99.5
(70% fibres)
3.2a,b 99.5 n.a. n.c.
0.7a,b 99.9
3.5a,b (30% fibres) 99.1
(additionally with
BAF)
Talvitie & Viikinmäki, 300, 100, 20 PES, PE, PP, PS, PUR, n.a. n.a. n.c. 0.5a n.c. 0.3 (discfilter [40.0]
Mikola et al. Helsinki, Finland PVC, PA, alkyd resin, 10 μm)
(2017b)78 acrylamide, PAL, AS,
PPO, EVA
2.0a 0.03a (discfilter [98.5]
20 μm)
Kakolamäki, Turku, n.a. n.a. n.c. 0.7a n.c. 0.02a (rapid sand [97.1]
Finland filter)
Paroinen, n.a. n.a. n.c. 2.0a n.c. 0.1a (DAF) [95.0]
Hämeenlinna,
Finland
Kenkäveronnie-mi, n.a. 6.9a n.c. 0.2a [97.1] n.a. n.c.
Mikkeli, Finland
— n.c. 0.005a (MBR) [99.9]
a
Ziajahromi 3 WWTPs, Sydney, 25–500 PVC, PS, PP, PET, PE, n.a. 1.5 n.c. n.a. n.c. n.a. n.c.
et al. (2017)80 Australia nylon n.a. 1.44a n.c. 0.48a [66.7] n.a. n.c.
n.a. 2.2a n.c. n.a. n.c. 0.28a [87.2]
(ultrafiltration)
0.21a (RO) [90.5]
a b
Indicates mixture of FMPs and MP particles; indicates mixture of synthetic and non-synthetic particles. “n.a.”: data not given or treatment stage was absent; “n.c.”: not calculable; BAF: biologi-
cally active filter; AnMBR: anaerobic membrane bioreactor; MBR: membrane bioreactor; DAF: dissolved air flotation; RO: reverse osmosis. AS: acrylonitrile resin; BPL: biopolymer; EVA: ethylene-
vinyl alcohol; HDPE: high-density polyethylene; LDPE: low-density polyethylene; MCR: methacrylate; MMF: melamine; PA: polyamide; PAL: polyacrylate; PE: polyethylene; PEP: polyethylene propy-
lene; PES: polyester; PET: polyethylene terephthalate; PIB: polyisobutylene; PP: polypropylene; PPO: polyphenylene oxides; PS: polystyrene; PTFE (Teflon): polytetrafluoroethylene; PUR: poly-
urethane; PVC: polyvinyl chloride.
View Article Online

Green Chemistry
View Article Online
improvements in MP removal (20–≥300 µm, Table 2).75 The organic matter by accelerating sedimentation and adhesion.78
secondary treatment stage is a biological treatment stage with However, the FMP removal efficiency of chemical treatments
activated sludge where organics are removed by bio- in WWTPs is not clear.
degradation or by sorption and entrapment in sewage sludge The IUCN (2017) estimates a global MP treatment efficiency
flocs. Given that the main types of FMPs originating from syn- of WWTPs of 85% on the basis of input sources including syn-
thetic textiles are PES, PA, PP and PAN, which are not easily thetic textiles, personal care products and plastic pellets.12 In
biodegradable in WWTPs and ambient environmental our estimation, from a summary of the discussed data
conditions,71,76 the removal of particles in this treatment stage (Table 2), an overall average removal of 95% can be obtained
is probably achieved mainly due to (co)sedimentation or during treatment in WWTPs.
entrapment in activated sludge flocs.27 Here, one additional aspect that we believe to be important
The removal of MPs in the primary and secondary treat- in determining retention is particle size. Particle size is often
ment stages can be attributed to the tendency of fibres to be considered to define particle behaviour, and it also signifi-
blocked by grit and screen treatment and to be entrapped via cantly influences the retention of MPs in WWTPs. In one study
adsorption to sludge.75 However, sufficient analytical data are that characterised FMPs in a secondary WWTP, 29%, 26%, and
required to declare whether FMPs of a comparable dimension 45% of the FMPs in the influent fell within the size range of
to regularly shaped MPs would undergo increased blockage by 100–500, 500–1000, and 1000–5000 μm, respectively.85 After
screening and adsorption due to, e.g., preferential fibre floc the primary treatment stage, the largest size fraction was
formation. removed the most, accounting for only 7% of the MPs in the
After secondary treatment, a total particle removal of 90% primary effluent, while fibres of the smallest size (100–500 μm)
can be commonly achieved, and an efficiency approaching became dominant (66%).85 In the final effluent, no fibres in
100% has been detected in some WWTPs (Table 2). the largest size range (1000–5000 μm) were detected, while
Tertiary treatment is applied to further improve the water smaller FMPs of 100–500 μm and 500–1000 μm represented
quality of effluent by reducing microorganisms or nitrogen 57% and 43% of MPs, respectively.85 The findings may be
and phosphate concentrations via, e.g., chlorination, precipi- attributed to the fact that larger fibres are more likely to settle
tation and/or filtration. Techniques such as sand filtration,77,78 and therefore can be more easily removed with precipitates.90
membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment,77 pile fabric fil- These observations indicate that FMPs that are emitted from
tration,79 ultrafiltration,80 reverse osmosis (RO),80 disc fil- WWTPs to receiving waters may be those of smaller sizes.
tration,78 and dissolved air flotation (DAF)78 have been studied
regarding their use as a tertiary stage for MP removal (Table 2). Emission of fibrous microplastics from WWTPs to the
A high removal rate of 95–>99% can eventually be achieved environment
with DAF (>95%), sand filtration, disc filtration or pile fabric Despite the generally high removal (retention) in WWTPs,
filtration (>97%), and MBR treatment (>99%) (Table 2). residual particles and fibres are emitted via WWTP discharges
Ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis (RO)80 showed a lower (Table 2). Michielssen et al. found that even though the
removal efficiency (87–90%, Table 2); however, the differences removal efficiency of fibres of textile origin by tertiary treat-
in other factors that we stressed at the beginning of the ment (anaerobic MBR) exceeded 99% (Table 2), the final
section may lead to variations in evaluations among studies. effluent of the WWTP still contained an equivalent of 903
In most cases, the specific improvement relative to the pre- fibres per capita per day.77 Based on the reviewed studies, the
vious treatment stage (e.g., secondary treatment) obtained by amount of FMP residues that can occur in effluent ranges
using these techniques is not always investigated within the from 0.004 to 50 particles per L (in some cases mixed with
studies. According to available data (Table 2), it can be esti- natural fibres and particles, Table 2). In addition, particles and
mated that a further removal, reaching 0.2%–2.8% and 20% in fibres screened out by grit treatment in the primary treatment
studies using MBRs29,78 and membrane filtration (types not stage are disposed of, while MPs that precipitate in the
specified)81 respectively, is possible. In the case of using sand primary and secondary sludge will eventually be removed
filtration, the re-injection of MPs into the WWTP during the during sludge processing (Fig. 3). The processed sludge is
backwashing process must be considered.77,82 reused or disposed of depending on the quality and the local
Along the main treatment stages, chemicals are often used demand, as well as on management policies. Sludge appli-
to assist wastewater purification through chemical precipi- cation to soils might result in the emission of the particles to
tation (e.g., coagulation and flocculation), adsorption, ion the terrestrial environment. The retention of FMPs in sludge-
exchange and neutralisation.83 A combined system consisting amended soils and their distribution are not within the scope
of mechanical screening (coarse screening and grit chamber), of this review, however, the fate of sludge-associated FMPs
chemical treatment, and primary sedimentation in the pre- needs to be evaluated in detail from an environmental risk
treatment step of a WWTP captured 97.4–98.4% of MPs from point of view.
the influent (avg. 380–687 MPs per L, 20–300 µm).75 Here, we estimate the emission of FMPs through WWTP
Coagulants such as iron-based and cationic polymers, as well discharges on a daily basis with release from synthetic textile
as flocculants such as polyaluminium chloride, have been washing as the source of entry. We adopt two approaches invol-
used in combination to improve the removal of particles and ving two datasets for extrapolation. First, by using the esti-
View Article Online
mated FMP content in the influent (i.e., 0.14–3.23 kg per day) complex in view of the variations in the data and local differ-
per 100 000 population and the overall removal rate in WWTPs ences. We attribute the variations among studies to differences
(95%, summarised from Table 2), we extrapolate the daily emis- in factors such as fibre type, sampling volume, mesh size, and
sion of FMPs in WWTP effluent, obtaining a range from sample preparation and analytical methods. These factors
0.007–0.16 kg per day (2.53–59 kg fibres per year). Given the make calculations and comparisons among studies difficult,
European population, which is approximately 448 million (2020 particularly considering that WWTPs also differ in terms of
data),91 31.4–717 kg of shed FMPs originating from textile treatment technologies and capacity. The differences also
washing might be emitted daily through WWTPs in Europe. include differences in textile consumption, washing habits,
In the second method, we use the reported fibre counts and stormwater events among regions or countries.
that have been detected in WWTP effluent (0.004–50 particles Diurnal28,75 and seasonal28 variations in WWTP processes
per L, mainly 15–5000 μm, summarised in Table 2) and the have been shown to influence sampling results. The estimates
same discharge rate of 0.45 m3 per person per day as that used given here mainly aim to give a rough quantitative overview by
in Bruce et al.’s study.92 On the scale of Europe, 8.06 × 108– considering one crucial fibre source (textile washing) and an
1.01 × 1013 microparticles per day (mostly FMPs, mixed with input scenario from the washing mode as described above.
particles of other shapes or of natural origin) might be emitted Therefore, changes in any of the factors mentioned above
from WWTPs. MPs emitted through WWTP discharges have would alter the present estimates, which need to be addressed
been considered a major pathway for the entry of MPs into the in future estimations and investigations after improved stan-
aquatic environment.11,16,93 dards are implemented.
Another possible pathway of FMP emission related to To date, standardised criteria for defining and categorising
WWTPs is overflow, which should receive more attention in the emission of MPs from production facilities and WWTPs
estimations. Such events can occur due to a lack of process (emission limit values) are still missing, as are Environmental
capacity or hydraulic capacity during heavy rains94 and can Quality Standards (EQS) for MPs.96 As a first step, EQS for MPs
hardly be avoided. In Germany, 30–50% of the stormwater is can be extrapolated in an analogous fashion to the criteria for
assumed to be discharged by combined sewer overflow (CSO) general chemical assessment, i.e., using assessment factors in
directly into receiving waters.95 Total sewer overflows of ecotoxicological assessment (acute and chronic) to derive
114 million m3 per year were estimated (wherein 90 million m3 threshold values.96 Meanwhile, the complexity resulting from
came from stormwater) for more than 2800 WWTPs located in the variety of MPs in terms of size, shape, surface, compo-
the Baltic Sea catchment; while on the same scale the total sition, the combined effect of particles at various levels of
amount of treated wastewater entering the Baltic Sea from action, and the poorly defined exposure values in environ-
these WWTPs was 6000 million m3 per year.94 In spite that the mental and laboratory media should be recognised.96
total flow rate of CSO is much lower than the treated waste-
water (with 114 vs. 6000 million m3 per year), the amounts of
MPs emitted via overflows are expected to be comparable to
those from treated wastewater from WWTPs (with 270.4 vs. Biodegradation of textile fibres and
202.1 tons per year).94 Such overflows contribute the large pro- fabrics
portion of MPs emitted to the Baltic Sea relative to the overall
MP mass (estimated at an average of 472.5 tons per year in The amount of FMPs discharged from WWTPs and the
total, considering particles ≥20 µm): 57.2% of MPs originate environmental load of the emitted fibres over time depend
from sewer overflow, while 42.8% originate from WWTP largely on the persistence of the materials. For biodegradable
effluent (with an average removal of 94%).94 These values materials, fibres might be eliminated in WWTPs by microbial
correspond to a ratio of 1.34 : 1 for the contributions of the digestion, while for persistent materials, environmental
two pathways to MPs. By applying this proportion, we roughly accumulation is likely.
estimated the annual emission of FMPs originating from In our recent study, cotton and viscose fibres fully bio-
textile washing driven by WWTP overflows. The resulting degraded (mineralised) over 60 days using aerobic conditions
amount, ranging from 3.39 to 79.1 kg per year from a hypothe- and inoculum from a WWTP, while no biodegradation was
tical WWTP serving 100 000 residents, is presumed to be observed for PET fibres within the same time period (test
emitted by overflows. Together with the aforementioned esti- fibres of avg. 300–800 μm in length).97 In another study, tex-
mated emission through WWTP discharges (2.53–59 kg fibres tiles made of non-synthetic fabrics (cotton and viscose, both
per year, assuming 95% removal), a total of 5.92–138.1 kg with the same knitting structure) were also found to be more
FMPs per year is presumably emitted from WWTPs to the degradable than PES-based fabrics.71 Fabrics made of PES
aquatic environment during overflow events. The estimation blended with cotton, however, showed certain degrees of bio-
shown above represents a rough extrapolation; the additional degradation, which was explained by the transformation of
output of FMPs during such events needs to be studied in cotton into CO2 and water.98 Similar observations regarding
detail and has to be evaluated on a local scale. the slightly improved biodegradation of fibres made of PET-
Creating an overall estimation of the retention of FMPs in cotton blends relative to that of fibres made solely of PET were
WWTPs and the amount of FMPs in WWTP emissions is also found in our recent biodegradation tests.97
View Article Online
In soils, during a burial simulation test lasting for 4 weeks, ganisms in laboratories show the potential to degrade poly-
PES (in the form of non-woven fabric or fibres with a diameter mers such as PA99 and PET,106 related data need to be clarified:
of 41 μm) exhibited persistence when subjected to digestion by (1) the abundance of these microorganisms and the active
soil microorganisms, showing no structural damage or weight enzymes in the natural environment, (2) criteria for defining
loss.98 In this study, the biodegradation of textile fabrics was “biodegradation” (e.g., superficial changes, such as surface
additionally shown to be correlated with the fabric structure: cracks and loss of tensile strength, be treated as qualitative
single jute fibres showed a greater weight loss than cotton signs of biodegradation), (3) the effect of fabric or fibre size
fibres in the burial test, indicating a higher degradation rate of and knitting structure on the extent of biodegradation, and (4)
the former; however, jute fabrics were less degradable than the influence of fibre blends and surface coatings, which are
cotton fabrics, which was attributed to the higher mass per very common in textile processing, on the process of
unit area of the former.98 biodegradation.
PA is another typical polymer that is widely used in syn-
thetic textiles such as nylon (PA 6 or 6.6). In a test scenario
simulating marine conditions, PA 6 (fibres, unknown size) Analytics of fibrous microplastics
showed biodegradability in the presence of several marine bac-
terial species, with the mass decreasing to 2% within a three- Detection, identification, and quantification of MPs from
month testing period.99 In addition to the bacteria, salinity process effluents and environmental matrices represents a
might contribute to degradation by promoting oxidation of the challenge due to the diversity of MPs as well as the complexity
polymers,100 thus leading to increased accessibility of the of matrix.
resulting products to the bacteria. Usually the size, shape, numbers and surface morphology
PLA, a synthetic polymer originating from renewable of FMPs can be determined by the aid of e.g., optical65,70,107,108
sources, has attracted widespread attention regarding its and electron57,62,65,66,109 microscopy. Numerous studies have
potential as an alternative for petroleum-based polymers in used these techniques as visual counting approach to quantify
textiles with a view toward sustainable development. PLA is a fibre sheds from textiles.21,62,66,68,70,107 The main drawback
biodegradable polymer, and PLA-degrading microorganisms however is that no specific information regarding the material
and enzymes have been reported.101 Biodegradation of PLA (in and additive compositions can be obtained particularly by
fragments) under anaerobic conditions in digested sludge was using optical microscopy. Characterisation with improved
observed in 39 days, showing bond breakage and severe qualities through the combination with spectroscopic and
surface cracks.102 Moreover, PLA (in sheets) showed complete thermo-analytical approaches is needed.
weight loss when buried in soils treated with dairy sewage Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and Raman
sludge for 15 days.103 Nonwoven PLA-polyhydroxybutyrate spectroscopy are frequently employed to determine MP sizes,
(PLA-PHB) blends lost tensile strength in 3 days when they numbers, material types and surface morphology; the particle
were incubated in a soil bacterial suspension, and under this detection limit for FTIR is 10–50 μm and for Raman is
condition, significant damage to the woven surface and 1–10 μm.110,111 Integrated measurements using microscopy
fibrous structure was detected within 15 days.103 In the soil and spectroscopy are common. For example, scanning electron
burial test, however, only minor biodegradation was observed microscopy (SEM) or stereomicroscope in combination with
for the blends.103 This clearly demonstrates that degradation the measurements of FTIR,65 attenuated total reflectance
properties depends largely on environmental conditions. (ATR)-FTIR,108,109 and Raman57 determined the polymeric
Given its numerous disadvantages, such as low heat resis- compositions of FMPs sampled from washing effluent,65 sea-
tance and mechanical brittleness, PLA is often modified by waters,108 sewage sludge,109 and rivers.57 Optical microscopy
blending, co-polarisation,103 addition of reinforcing phases104 combined with SEM and coupled with energy dispersive spec-
etc. Treating PLA with a carbodiimide-based additive to troscopy (EDS) was used to differentiate MPs from non-syn-
improve stabilisation led to significantly decreased bio- thetic interference in marine samples and to identify elemen-
degradation of the polymer.105 In addition, we found in our tal compositions.112 In addition, FTIR with different spectra
recent investigation that the biodegradation of viscose fibres acquisition accessories – transmission microscopy, ATR
decreased significantly when they were functionalised on the microscopy, single reflection ATR spectroscopy – exhibited dis-
surface with textile finishing compounds (a softener and in tinctive abilities in differentiation of natural and regenerated
particular antibacterial agent).97 Therefore, the effects of cellulosic fibres.113 Spectroscopic techniques have shortcom-
surface functionalisation and additives on biodegradation ings though in mass quantification, determination of additives
must be considered and quantified for WWTPs and environ- and adsorbed substances due to misidentification caused by
mental conditions, particularly for materials that are normally spectral alterations,110,111 which could limit the characteris-
treated as “biodegradable”. ation of e.g., FMPs released from textiles that are modified by
Overall, the biodegradation of synthetic textile fabrics or (multiple) finishes.
fibres, particularly those of petrochemical origins, might still In this regards thermo-analytical methods can provide
be very difficult in WWTPs and the environment. A much more information. Techniques such as pyrolysis-gas chromato-
slower rate in soils can be expected. Although some microor- graphy mass spectrometry (Pyr-GC/MS),110,111,114,115 thermal
View Article Online
desorption (TDS)-GC/MS (combined with thermogravimetric implemented in recent years to eliminate the input of MPs via
analysis),116 differential scanning calorimetry (DSC),110 allow the banning of microbeads in personal care and cosmetic pro-
the identification of certain polymer types, additive detection ducts (PCPs). Cosmetic products can contain up to 137 000–2
(Pyr-GC/MS) as well as mass balancing (but provide no infor- 800 000 microbeads (MPs) per bottle.120 Eight trillion micro-
mation in terms of size, shape, numbers or morphology of beads can be released daily from PCPs into aquatic ecosystems
fibres).110,111 via WWTPs.121 Limits or bans on the addition of microbeads
So far uncertainties frequently exist when describing the to PCP products have entered into force in European
occurrence of FMPs in laboratory or environmental samples: countries,122 the USA123 and Canada.124 Implementing these
(1) limits of quantification are generally too high for environ- bans is one step toward a strategy for MP mitigation.125
mental samples and the limit of detection or quantification of In October 2018, the European Parliament adopted an
measurement is not always given; (2) fibre sizes are simply amendment on the “Reduction of the impact of certain plastic
defined according to the pore-size of filters (Tables 1 & 2); (3) products on the environment”.126 The amendment supports
fibres are described as mixtures of synthetic and non-synthetic restrictions on the addition of MPs in products on a global
polymers which often contain substances that cannot be well scale and the use of oxo-plastics in the EU.126 Reductions in
identified87,117 (see also Table 2). The last is important MPs originating from textiles, car tyres and leakage from pre-
because only particles/fibres made of synthetic materials are production pellets are also proposed as options.126 In the
considered MPs/FMPs. beginning of 2019, the ECHA proposed restricting the addition
Given the large variation of FMPs in sizes (lengths and dia- of MPs to products at the EU scale.127 This action was expected
meters), polymer types and additives, as well as the lack of to decrease MP emissions by approximately 400 000 tons in
robust characterisation of FMPs in different sample matrices the EU over 20 years.127 In parallel, related research and
as mentioned above, the combination of standardised analyti- investigations on monitoring and methods are encouraged. A
cal measurements for sample characterisation is necessary to thorough investigation of plastic fragments and MPs was pro-
achieve better understanding of fate and impact of FMPs. This posed driven by concerns related to pollution in terrestrial
will enable comparisons among studies with regard to e.g., environments and human health.126 Later, in February 2019,
FMP types, size ranges, and quantities, reduce uncertainties, in an amendment proposed by the European Commission to
and improve the estimation of FMP shedding from textiles, Parliament and the Council (COM(2018)0337), the European
retention in WWTPs, emission to receivers, and their environ- Parliament stressed the development of parameters and
mental abundance. measurement methods for examining MPs in reclaimed water
and urban wastewater treatment in relation to the risk assess-
ment of micropollutants.128 In April 2019, in a response
Avoidance and reduction of emission regarding the mitigation of MP pollution, the EC’s Group of
Chief Scientific Advisors declared, based on scientific evidence
Regarding the overall release and persistence of FMPs, as well from the Science Advice for Policy by European Academies
as the adverse impacts that FMPs might impose on the (SAPEA) project,129 the need to make and promote consensus
environment, it is without question that efforts must be made on a global scale for policy advice.130
to reduce emissions and further pollution. The subsequent Regarding fibre emission, a consultancy report was pre-
sections summarise selected ongoing regulatory approaches pared by Eunomia in 2018 for the EC, and it proposed a few
and include suggestions from the authors in this respect. standardised measures to determine fibre shedding in
washing and tumble drying.131 This report suggested a
Current regulations maximum release threshold and a scale to interpret the
In 2015, the EU Parliament adopted the Directive of Single- release level of fibres from textiles in the EU.131 Other
Use-Plastics (Directive (EU) 2015/720) with a goal to reduce the measures to reduce fibre emission by improving techniques in
consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags by the end of washing procedures (e.g., using additional filters) and in
2025.118 In May 2017, the European Commission Decision on WWTPs were proposed in the report, and related research was
Good Environmental Status (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/ encouraged to improve understanding.131 Long-term monitor-
848) stipulated that Member States should use certain criteria ing of emissions will also help to verify the effectiveness of the
and methodological standards to characterise good environ- established measures and cope with MP reductions. Tracking
mental status.119 It emphasised the application of specifica- and modelling MPs over the long term have been conducted
tions and standardised methods for monitoring and assess- along coastlines in the Americas and Europe, with the aim of
ment to establish coordinated plastic monitoring programs.119 international cooperation.132
Although MPs are not directly included in the stated regulatory Plastic recycling is a widely agreed-upon measure for redu-
frameworks, these actions will contribute to mitigating MP cing plastics in the environment. In early 2015, the EC
pollution by reducing MP generation from bulk plastics during announced in a Communication (COM(2015)0614) that plas-
production and use. tics was one of the priority sectors in the context of the circular
In addition to addressing environmental pollution from economy.133 The Communication proposed supporting actions
general plastic litter, a series of regulatory policies have been in each step of the circular value chain, which includes pro-
View Article Online
duction, consumption, waste management and reuse, by duction processes, (2) prevention of emissions during con-
addressing issues such as recyclability, biodegradability, in- sumption, (3) improvement of reuse and recycling, and (4)
bed hazardous substances and marine litter.133 Innovative end-of-pipe measures.
solutions for advanced sorting, chemical recycling, improved Improved production. FMPs originating from synthetic tex-
polymer design in terms of biodegradability and sustainability, tiles need to be managed throughout the entire supply chain,
and alternative feedstocks were also proposed as feasible which starts with fabric production,107 given the immense
measures to prevent MP pollution.133 Accordingly, textiles have annual production volume (Fig. 2). Designing fibres and
been indicated by the EC as a priority product category in cir- fabrics to increase durability which benefits longer use and
cularity, and a perspective toward a circular and sustainable reuse, and prevent shedding, e.g., during wearing and
textile system has been announced.134 EU Member States are washing, can be one solution.137,138 Modifications in knitting
obligated to separate textile waste by 2025 (Directive (EU) 2018/ and weaving techniques that improve the durability of fibres
851).135 The recent EU Green Deal (September 2020) proposed and prevent or minimise shedding can also be
vigorously supporting the plastic circular economy by using beneficial.66,70,138 Dyeing, bleaching and finishing processes
post-consumer recycled (PCR) plastics in the manufacturing also need to be adjusted to minimise their effects on fibre
and development of new markets for PCR materials in view of shedding62 and with respect to their emission of chemicals
the reduced generation of greenhouse gases and consumption into the environment. It is also recommended that pre-treat-
of energy in the life cycle of PCR products.136 Legislation is ment methods such as prewashing (considering that fibre
called for to encourage sustainable transformation of plastics, shedding commonly diminishes with every washing cycle) and
and the need for cross-industry cooperation and advancing re- vacuum exhaustion at production sites could mitigate emis-
cycling infrastructure to achieve the goal are stressed.136 sions in later consumption phases,137 if efficient filtration
systems at the site of production are available.
Positive actions toward avoidance and reduction To establish a fully sustainable and circular bioeconomy,
Proactive measures to avoid and limit the generation of FMPs using natural cellulosic materials and developing alternative
from a very early stage in the production of textiles and use textile materials such as those made of bio-based and/or bio-
phase are the main steps toward preventing MP pollution and degradable polymers can also be a solution.11,138 The most-dis-
need to be carried out through international collaborations cussed alternatives are PLA,139 polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA)
among scientists, industries, policy makers and public enti- (which has 100% renewable origins and is biodegradable
ties. Potential actions in this regard are listed in Fig. 4 and under many conditions),140,141 polycaprolactone (PCL), poly-
cover the well-known 3R strategy (reduce, reuse, recycle). The butylene succinate (PBS) and PHB,142,143 among which PLA,
strategies include (1) prevention of fibre emissions from pro- PHA and PHB are bio-based and biodegradable plastics
Fig. 4 Overview on the 3R (reuse, reduction, recycle) and end-of-pipe strategies aiming the avoidance and reduction of synthetic textile-originated
microplastic concentration in the environment. “WWTP”: wastewater treatment plant.
View Article Online
derived from renewable sources.141,142 Currently, however, not print in terms of the additional resource uses, CO2
all of the proposed alternatives seem suitable for use in textiles emissions,153,154 chemical emissions155 and water
156
or for solving the FMP problem since biodegradable plastics consumption.
are not equally biodegradable under all environmental con- Longer use by consumers is encouraged through edu-
ditions, a topic which needs further research in future. The cational campaigns to combat so-called fast fashion,137,157 par-
most frequently studied PET alternative is PLA.144–146 PLA exhi- ticularly considering that FMPs are usually released the most
bits shortcomings e.g., low thermal resistance, in textile appli- in the first few washes of new textiles. These perspectives
cations or processing, and research addressing these short- should also be supported by textile production efforts to man-
comings is ongoing.145 In 2019, the global production of bio- ufacture clothes of higher quality and improved durability.
plastics was 2.43 million tons, less than 1% of the global Another measure will be to develop an efficient second-hand
plastic production, in which textile applications accounted for clothing supply-use chain. Increased second-hand sales and
10%.147 Bio-PE, bio-PET and bio-PA constituted the dominant use will help keep the release of FMPs to a minimum level as
share, accounting for 0.89 million tons (i.e., 42% of the total), shedding decreases with each wear and washing cycle, and
while the production of PLA and PHA was 0.21 and reduce export rates and littering. In the report “The Fibre Year
0.29 million tons, respectively.147 – Textile 2025”, based on data provided by the International
The environmental footprint of bioplastic production is Trade Centre, the net trade of second-hand clothes in the
another crucial aspect in evaluating the overall advantages of period 2005–2018 increased in the investigated countries,
bioplastic implementation. Life cycle assessments (LCAs) of which included Italy, France, Japan, Korea, the UK, Germany
bioplastics have revealed their benefits in replacing petroleum- and the USA.158 The trade of second-hand clothing in the UK,
based plastics in terms of global warming potential and Germany and the USA was to the highest, with a clothing
energy consumption.147 Moreover, bioplastics could act as a article trade volume of approximately 400 000, 450 000, and
carbon sink;148 for example, replacing PET with 1 kg PLA is 750 000 tons in 2018, respectively.158 However, effective collec-
expected to remove 1.83 kg CO2 from the environment.149 tion and reuse systems for second-hand clothes need continu-
Maga et al. investigated the recycling of PLA from PLA consu- ing efforts.
mer waste by using three technologies and confirmed the In addition, optimisation of washing procedures to alleviate
benefits of recycling with regard to greenhouse gas emissions, abrasion of synthetic textiles can help to reduce shedding,
land use, terrestrial and aquatic eutrophication, and particu- which could include reductions in detergent use, speed and
late production during related processes.150 water volume, as discussed in the previous sections.
Despite the advantages mentioned above, it should also be End-of-life and recycling. The emission of FMPs can be
noted that not all synthetic materials can be replaced by bio- reduced by improving the collection of used textiles and
plastic materials, particularly considering the massive pro- reusing them rather than directly discarding them. The trans-
duction volume required. In 2019, only 0.02% (1.4 million ha) formation of used textiles into other products, such as indus-
of global agricultural area was needed to grow feedstock for trial rags, furniture decorations, bags, backpacks, publicity tex-
bioplastics;148 thus, no significant competition is anticipated tiles, etc.,137 will prolong the lifetime of textile products. Thus,
between e.g., crops used for food production and those for bio- a corresponding chain of steps related to the disposal and pro-
plastic production in terms of land use.151 However, with the cessing of worn textiles should also be established and
increasing demand for bioplastic, this relationship might popularised.
change, and in general, the footprint in terms of land use and Accordingly, recycling is another method to prolong the
water consumption needs to be continuously evaluated to lifetime of textiles. Converting plastic products to value-added
reach sustainable solutions. materials, e.g., plasticisers ( polylactide),159 feedstock
In overall evaluations of ecological footprint, obstacles exist materials160,161 and modifiers,162 through recycling mitigates
regarding the differences among countries in terms of yield the overall emission volume produced. Synthetic textiles or
factors, production processes, and analytical approaches.147 fabrics can be recycled via mechanical recycling (mainly by
Other factors, such as the use of pesticides, impacts due to shredding) and chemical recycling (via depolymerisation and
monoculture cultivation, costs in relation to transportation, repolymerisation).163 Taking PET fibres as an example, aero-
and the potential toxicity of bioplastics, should be sufficiently gels synthesised from recycled PET fibres showed environmen-
investigated. tally friendly applications in thermal and acoustic insula-
Prevention during consumption. In Europe, 5.8 million tons tion.164 Moreover, PET fibres can be depolymerised at 250 °C
of textiles are discarded each year, and clothes have an average and post-treated with cutinase to yield the feedstock terephtha-
lifespan of 2.2–5 years.137 In Germany, according to lic acid (TPA) with a purity of 97%, which is nearly as high as
Greenpeace, 1.3 million tons of textiles end up as waste, that of regularly produced TPA (98%) for PET synthesis.165
showing a very short duration of wear (50% of textiles are worn Interestingly, the tensile strength and abrasion resistance of
for less than 3 years).152 A short clothing lifespan is not textiles are improved by integrating recycled PET into the
necessarily caused by low quality or durability and may be fabrics.166 Such applications make fibre-to-fibre recycling167
attributable to consumer behaviour. In general, textiles are possible. However, the currently available methods for textile
valuable products that may have a significant ecological foot- recycling are still limited since the diverse mixing of materials,
View Article Online
coatings, dyes, etc. presents the main obstacle.137 Chemical re- ble MP emissions and concomitantly a sound environmental
cycling of plastic polymers also needs further development to hazard assessment of MPs. It must be noted that the men-
achieve a higher recovery168 and conversion efficiency,160,161 as tioned improvements to WWTPs might not be a solution suit-
well as to reduce impacts on the properties169 and quality170 of able for every geographical location, as infrastructure is not
the materials. The associated energy consumption and emis- available in some regions worldwide.16 Furthermore, improv-
sion problems however cannot be neglected. Fabrics with ing sludge processes, e.g., by pre-treatment to minimise MP
natural and synthetic polymer blends (e.g., wool-PES) can be content, will be beneficial.
recycled to remove the natural component (wool) by enzymatic Here, one important issue that needs particular attention is
digestion, while the remaining recalcitrant PES is recycled to sewer overflow in WWTPs, which might cause significant emis-
produce PES yarn.171 Recycled textiles made of fibres recovered sion of MPs. Therefore, although a total removal close to 100%
from waste plastic products are, however, not considered fully can be expected by the incorporation of additional and/or
circular if they cannot be recycled via current techniques.137 advanced treatment steps (Table 2), a large amount of FMPs
Nevertheless, the application of recycled fibres and regener- will be emitted via CSOs to receiving water bodies on some
ated fibres to respond to the growing demand for textiles is days. In consideration of this effect, instead of investing in
considered to support a sustainable fabric market. Recycled additional treatment steps, resources could be used to reduce
and regenerated fibres are essential components in a recent overflow and concomitantly the amount of various (micro)pol-
concept called “Eco fibres”.172 Studies on the “eco-fibre lutants. Technological advances and adaptation of treatment
market” have provided insights into trend analysis, market measures in CSO control as well as the implementation of
sizes, opportunities, market expansion scope and competition related policies to limit pollution discharge from CSOs are con-
to provide an outlook and an executive framework for such a sidered crucial and have been proposed by agencies such as
market.172 The global “eco-fibre market” is expected to grow at the ECHA179 and the US Environmental Protection Agency
a CAGR of 10.5% from 2018–2022.172 (EPA).180
End-of-pipe. Adding efficient filters62,66 or improving the In addition, regarding plastics in water bodies, in recent
existing filters173 in washing machines might also prevent years, downstream measures such as clean-up technologies –
fibre emission. Another suggested mitigation strategy is to plastic collectors – have been deployed to remove floating plas-
employ an external filtration system at custom pipe junctions, tics in the oceans and to halt the transport of plastics from
for instance, by installing a removable filter made of stainless rivers to the oceans.181 Such technology is reported to be able
steel at the drain connection point.65 Recently, a Lint LUV-R to capture MPs with a size as low as 1 mm.182
filter, which has an internally installed stainless steel filter
with the mesh of 150 μm, was found to retain 87% of the
number of FMPs (from PES fleece, >100 μm) in washing
effluent.174 Furthermore, laundry balls175 designed to help Conclusions
catch fibres during washing are reported to decrease fibre
counts in washing effluent by 26%.174 In addition, using MPs and FMPs can be detected ubiquitously in all environ-
washing bags to enclose synthetic textiles during laundering is mental compartments worldwide and can be found in various
reported to reduce FMP emissions due to the capture of fibres aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Knowledge about the par-
from the hems.176 However, the overall effectiveness of these ticles and their environmental fate and toxicity is rapidly
approaches to fibre reduction needs to be weighted in relation expanding and has been summarised in several excellent
to the mesh or pore size of the filters, as well as the filtration reviews.2,183–185 However, there is still an enormous lack of
and capture capacity. knowledge in this regard, especially when FMPs are con-
Technically, it is possible to reduce the emission of FMPs sidered. There is no international consensus yet on how to
by adding another end filtration step, such as sand filtration, define FMPs, but a standardised definition that can be widely
MBR treatment or pile fabric filtration, to WWTPs. The accepted is urgently required to improve global monitoring
Henriksdal municipal WWTP in Stockholm, Sweden, is in the and management strategies. In the present review, we use the
process of upgrading part of its existing sludge system by term “FMPs” to refer to synthetic fibrous microparticles with a
adding an MBR, making it one of the largest MBR facilities.177 length of 0.1 µm–15 mm and a ratio of length to diameter
In addition, technologies that are commonly used for remov- higher than 3, in accordance with the ECHA.9 Moreover, the
ing micropollutants in water treatment, such as granular acti- term “microfibres” is frequently used in several existing
vated carbon, can reduce MPs ( particularly <50 μm) by up to studies to describe fibre-shaped MPs, but in the textile indus-
approximately 61%.178 However, such technical expansion may try, this term reflects the diameter rather than the length of a
come with considerable investment and maintenance costs fibre regardless of the material. Even if there is certain overlap
and require more energy as well as additional chemicals and in the definition between “FMPs” and “microfibres”, a clear
materials. Additional treatment in WWTPs might be con- differentiation should be made.
sidered for areas that suffer from high FMP loads. However, FMPs released from synthetic textiles during laundering are
assessing the need for such treatment requires environmental thought to be a major reason for the environmental abun-
monitoring as well as knowledge on environmentally accepta- dance of fibres. Based on the available data, we estimated FMP
View Article Online

Fig. 5 Simplified summary of the estimated mass of FMPs released from synthetic textile laundering (considering “moderate” and “worst-case”
scenarios of washing) to WWTPs and the subsequent emission via WWTP discharges. The values are presented on the basis of a population of
100 000 in each given scenario for estimation. WWTP: wastewater treatment plant.
emissions via laundering, elimination in WWTPs, and final and urbanisation.94 When taking sewage overflows bypassing
entry into environmental waters (summarised in Fig. 5). WWTP (e.g., during stormwater events) into account, the dis-
The estimation based on current studies gives the annual charge increases and is estimated to range from 5.92 to
release of FMPs during textile washing within 50.6–1180 kg 138.1 kg FMPs per year per 100 000 population. Additionally,
per 100 000 population (Fig. 5); this value largely depends on approximations of fibre flows representing “worst-case” scen-
the washing conditions (e.g., washing cycles, speed, deter- arios where the estimations are based on fibre release during
gents, and type of washing machine), the textile materials, and the first washing cycle, show emissions which are higher than
the methodology used to characterise shed fibres. Existing the “moderate scenario” mentioned above by a factor of 10
studies using the same scale of estimation show results com- (Fig. 5).
parable to ours; reported values include 372 kg fibres per year Our estimations focus on the washing of synthetic textiles,
(nylon, 20 and 333 μm filtered),22 445 kg fibres per year (syn- but it needs to be pointed out that other sources of shed syn-
thetic, 63 μm filtered),64 and an average of 2800 kg fibres per thetic fibres exist. The spread of FMPs to the air during the
year (PES, length 100–1000 μm, diameter 10–20 μm).68 manufacturing, transportation, wearing56 and drying55 of syn-
A great extent of fibre removal, on average reaching 95%, by thetic garments has to be considered33 but has not yet been
WWTPs can be achieved by the primary, secondary, and ter- fully quantified. In other words, the emission of FMPs during
tiary treatment. Despite the high removal, the daily discharge the entire life cycle of a material needs to be assessed.
from a WWTP can be estimated to span 0.007 to 0.16 kg ( per Abrasion and fragmentation of technical geotextiles such as
100 000 population, Fig. 5). This discharge rate corresponds to agricultural films and mulches can also be additional sources
an annual emission of 2.53–59 kg FMPs. Moreover, combined of FMPs to the environment.186 Sound estimations of the emis-
sewer overflow has been shown to be an important source of sion of FMPs from various sources to the environment require
contaminant debris including MPs that are discharged to the combination of analytical techniques to reduce uncertainties,
environment.94,179,180 An estimated amount of 3.39–79.1 kg in particular in FMP dimension, compositions and additives,
FMPs per year from WWTP serving 100 000 residents could be which are crucial characteristics for a robust environmental
emitted by overflows, showing a comparable level of the emis- risk assessment.
sion to that from WWTP discharges (2.53–59 kg FMPs per After approximating the emission of FMPs, questions arise
year). Overflows could occur increasingly particularly during about environmentally acceptable loads and the definition of
heavy precipitation events such as heavy rainfall or EQS for MPs (fibres). Environmental hazard and risk assess-
snowmelt,94,180 and more frequently due to climate change ments must be based on the environmental concentration,
View Article Online
fate, and toxicological properties of the target compound or References

material. In this regard, it must be evaluated whether MPs can
be assessed by treating it as a class of materials which can be 1 S. C. Gall and R. C. Thompson, Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2015, 92,
represented by an indicator MP (i.e., the main MP type in pro- 170–179.
duction, usage and environmental occurrence, such as PE, PP 2 D. Eerkes-Medrano, R. C. Thompson and D. C. Aldridge,
or PS), or if further differentiation in terms of shape, size frac- Water Res., 2015, 75, 63–82.
tion, material composition, additive content, surface coating 3 A. A. de Souza Machado, W. Kloas, C. Zarfl, S. Hempel
and modification, etc. is required, e.g., in case that the mass of and M. C. Rillig, Glob. Chang. Biol., 2018, 24, 1405–1416.
the indicator MP in the environment exceeds its EQS.96 4 A. Khoironi and S. Anggoro, J. Ecol. Eng., 2019, 20, 161–
Scientists, policy makers and the public are becoming 173.
increasingly concerned about the continuous release of per- 5 H. K. Imhof, J. Rusek, M. Thiel, J. Wolinska and
sistent materials in large amounts. It is the strong belief of the C. Laforsch, PLoS One, 2017, 12, 1–20.
authors that focus must be put on reduction and avoidance 6 M. Di and J. Wang, Sci. Total Environ., 2018, 616–617,
measures in accordance with the 3R strategy (reduce, reuse, 1620–1627.
recycle). Throughout this review, we discussed several options 7 Microplastic marine debris: what are microplastics?,
that can be applied during the production, usage and end-of- https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Micro
life phases of synthetic textiles. These mainly include (1) plasticsOnePager_0.pdf, (accessed 1 February 2021).
improvement in manufacturing technology to reduce FMP 8 The European Commission, COMMISSION DECISION
shedding (e.g., textile and fibre durability and finishing (EU) 2017/1217 of 23 June 2017 establishing the EU
process optimisation), as well as development of bio-based Ecolabel criteria for hard surface cleaning productsal
and/or biodegradable materials as substitution; (2) optimi- laundry detergents, 2017.
sation in washing conditions to reduce shedding; (3) develop- 9 European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Committee for Risk
ment of efficient second-hand textile supply-use chain to Assessment (RAC) Committee for Socio-economic Analysis
reduce the continuous consumption of new textiles; (4) pro- (SEAC) Background document, Helsinki, Finland, 2020.
longation of textile lifetime with improved material transform- 10 N. B. Hartmann, T. Hüffer, R. C. Thompson, M. Hassellöv,
ation and recycling into different products. These approaches A. Verschoor, A. E. Daugaard, S. Rist, T. Karlsson,
should be first considered since they tackle the source of the N. Brennholt, M. Cole, M. P. Herrling, M. C. Hess,
problem. End-of-pipe strategies such as washing machine N. P. Ivleva, A. L. Lusher and M. Wagner, Environ. Sci.
filters, drain filters and additional purification steps in Technol., 2019, 53, 1039–1047.
WWTPs might be taken into account on a case-by-case basis to 11 J. Peng, J. Wang and L. Cai, Integr. Environ. Assess.
further reduce emissions if necessary. Each measure deals Manage., 2017, 13, 476–482.
with vital spots along FMP emission chain throughout 12 J. Boucher and D. Friot, Primary microplastics in the
different stages of textile life cycle, therefore, joint efforts of oceans: a global evaluation of sources, IUCN, Gland,
the textile industry, stakeholders, academia, policy makers and Switzerland, 2017.
customers are required to finally reduce environmental con- 13 M. Wagner, C. Scherer, D. Alvarez-Muñoz, N. Brennholt,
tamination by FMPs. X. Bourrain, S. Buchinger, E. Fries, C. Grosbois,
J. Klasmeier, T. Marti, S. Rodriguez-Mozaz, R. Urbatzka,
A. D. Vethaak, M. Winther-Nielsen and G. Reifferscheid,
Environ. Sci. Eur., 2014, 26, 12.
Conflicts of interest 14 J. L. Conkle, C. D. Báez Del Valle and J. W. Turner,
Environ. Manage., 2018, 61, 1–8.
There are no conflicts to declare.
15 I. E. Napper, A. Bakir, S. J. Rowland and R. C. Thompson,
Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2015, 99, 178–185.
16 F. S. Cesa, A. Turra and J. Baruque-Ramos, Sci. Total
Acknowledgements Environ., 2017, 598, 1116–1129.
17 BISFA, Terminology of man-made fibres, Brussels, 2017 edn,
The project is financed by the Federal Ministry of Education 2017.
and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und 18 A.I.S.E., CEPI, CIPCEL, CIRFS, Cosmetic Europe, EDANA,
Forschung, BMBF), Germany, within the Joint Project EURATEX, IVC and textil + mode, Directive (EU) 2019/904
“TextileMission”, with the funding code of 13NKE010C at the Guidance document on scope and definition - Guidelines
Technische Universität Dresden. Marta Markiewicz acknowl- on single-use plastic products-why viscose should not be
edges the support of the Kurt Eberhard Bode Stiftung and the considered as plastic, 2021.
Deutsches Stiftungszentrum with grant T0122/33724/2019kg. 19 A. A. Horton, A. Walton, D. J. Spurgeon, E. Lahive and
We would like to thank the entire group at the Institute of C. Svendsen, Sci. Total Environ., 2017, 586, 127–141.
Water Chemistry (IWC), Technische Universität Dresden, 20 P. Sundt, P.-E. Schultze and F. Syversen, Sources of micro-
Germany. plastic pollution to the marine environment, 2014.
View Article Online
21 L. Åström, Shedding of synthetic microfibers from textiles, 2016. 46 I. V. Kirstein, S. Kirmizi, A. Wichels, A. Garin-Fernandez,
22 N. L. Hartline, N. J. Bruce, S. N. Karba, E. O. Ruff, R. Erler, M. Löder and G. Gerdts, Mar. Environ. Res., 2016,
S. U. Sonar and P. A. Holden, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2016, 120, 1–8.
50, 11532–11538. 47 DNFI, Forecast world fibre production, https://textile-
23 W. Bobeth, Textile Faserstoffe: Beschaffenheit und Eigenschaften, network.com/en/Technical-Textiles/Fasern-Garne/Forecast-
Springer-Verlag Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, 1993. world-fibre-production, (accessed 20 February
24 M. J. Denton and P. N. Daniels, Textile terms and defi- 2020).
nitions, Textile Institute, Manchester, Eleventh., 2002. 48 T. Townsend, Natural Fibres and the World Economy
25 B. Henry, K. Laitala and I. G. Klepp, Sci. Total Environ., July 2019, https://dnfi.org/coir/natural-fibres-and-the-world-
2019, 652, 483–494. economy-july-2019_18043/, (accessed 2 July 2020).
26 R. Dris, J. Gasperi, C. Mirande, C. Mandin, 49 Global synthetic fibers industry, https://www.globenews-
M. Guerrouache, V. Langlois and B. Tassin, Environ. wire.com/news-release/2019/10/10/1927774/0/en/Global-
Pollut., 2017, 221, 453–458. Synthetic-Fibers-Industry.html, (accessed 19 February
27 M. Stark, Melliand Int., 2017, 23, 135–139. 2020).
28 J. Bayo, S. Olmos and J. López-Castellanos, Chemosphere, 50 Man-made fibers continue to grow, https://www.textile-
2020, 238, 124593. world.com/textile-world/fiber-world/2015/02/man-made-

29 M. Lares, M. C. Ncibi, M. Sillanpää and M. Sillanpää, fibers-continue-to-grow/, (accessed 20 July 2019).
Water Res., 2018, 133, 236–246. 51 Synthetic fibers market size worth $88 billion by
30 A. P. W. Barrows, S. E. Cathey and C. W. Petersen, Environ. 2025: CAGR 6.3%, https://www.grandviewresearch.com/
Pollut., 2018, 237, 275–284. press-release/global-synthetic-fibers-market, (accessed 19
31 J. Li, C. Green, A. Reynolds, H. Shi and J. M. Rotchell, February 2020).
Environ. Pollut., 2018, 241, 35–44. 52 Y. Qin, Global Fibres Overview, Pattaya, 2014, vol. 2014.
32 P. Van den Berg, E. Huerta-Lwanga, F. Corradini and 53 H. Deng, R. Wei, W. Luo, L. Hu, B. Li, Y. Di and H. Shi,
V. Geissen, Environ. Pollut., 2020, 261, 114198. Environ. Pollut., 2020, 258, 113658.
33 R. Dris, J. Gasperi, M. Saad, C. Mirande and B. Tassin, 54 M. R. Kelly, N. J. Lant, M. Kurr and J. G. Burgess, Environ.
Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2016, 104, 290–293. Sci. Technol., 2019, 53, 11735–11744.
34 J. Gasperi, S. L. Wright, R. Dris, F. Collard, C. Mandin, 55 S. O’Brien, E. D. Okoffo, J. W. O’Brien, F. Ribeiro,
M. Guerrouache, V. Langlois, F. J. Kelly and B. Tassin, X. Wang, L. W. Stephanie, S. Samanipour, C. Rauert,
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health, 2018, 1, 1–5. T. Y. A. Toapanta, R. Albarracin and K. V. Thomas, Sci.
35 R. W. Obbard, S. Sadri, Y. Q. Wong, A. A. Khitun, I. Baker Total Environ., 2020, 747, 141175.
and R. C. Thompson, Earth’s Future, 2014, 2, 315–320. 56 F. De Falco, M. Cocca, M. Avella and R. C. Thompson,
36 C. Fang, R. Zheng, Y. Zhang, F. Hong, J. Mu, M. Chen, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2020, 54, 3288–3296.
P. Song, L. Lin, H. Lin, F. Le and J. Bo, Chemosphere, 2018, 57 P. M. Silva and M. A. Nanny, Water, 2020, 12, 1210.
209, 298–306. 58 R. Essel, L. Engel, M. Carus and R. H. Ahrens, Quellen von
37 L. C. Woodall, A. Sanchez-Vidal, M. Canals, Mikroplastik mit Relevanz für den Meeresschutz in
G. L. J. Paterson, R. Coppock, V. Sleight, A. Calafat, Deutschland, Hürth, 2015.
A. D. Rogers, B. E. Narayanaswamy and R. C. Thompson, 59 J. Bertling, R. Bertling and L. Hamann, Kunststoffe in der
R. Soc. Open Sci., 2014, 1, 140317. Umwelt : Mikro- und Makroplastik.Ursachen, Mengen,
38 S. Klein, E. Worch and T. P. Knepper, Environ. Sci. Umweltschicksale, Wirkungen, Lösungsansätze, Empfehlungen,
Technol., 2015, 49, 6070–6076. Oberhausen, 2018.
39 M. Cole, R. Coppock, P. K. Lindeque, D. Altin, S. Reed, 60 M. A. Browne, P. Crump, S. J. Niven, E. Teuten, A. Tonkin,
D. W. Pond, L. Sørensen, T. S. Galloway and A. M. Booth, T. Galloway and R. Thompson, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2011,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 2019, 53, 7075–7082. 45, 9175–9179.
40 L. G. A. Barboza, C. Lopes, P. Oliveira, F. Bessa, V. Otero, 61 F. De Falco, E. Di Pace, M. Cocca and M. Avella, Sci. Rep.,
B. Henriques, J. Raimundo, M. Caetano, C. Vale and 2019, 9, 1–11.
L. Guilhermino, Sci. Total Environ., 2020, 717, 134625. 62 E. Hernandez, B. Nowack and D. M. Mitrano, Environ. Sci.
41 A. Jemec, P. Horvat, U. Kunej, M. Bele and A. Kržan, Technol., 2017, 51, 7036–7046.
Environ. Pollut., 2016, 219, 201–209. 63 A. Folkö, Quantification and characterization of fibers
42 Y. Song, C. Cao, R. Qiu, J. Hu, M. Liu, S. Lu, H. Shi, emitted from common synthetic materials during washing
K. M. Raley-Susman and D. He, Environ. Pollut., 2019, 250, Microplastic fibers discharged from a fleece shirt during
447–455. washing, Stockholms, 2015.
43 J. C. Prata, Environ. Pollut., 2018, 234, 115–126. 64 J. Klasmeier and M. Wissing, Waschmaschinenablauf als
44 S. Ziajahromi, A. Kumar, P. A. Neale and F. D. L. Leusch, mögliche Eintragsquelle von Textilfasern (Mikroplastik) in
Environ. Sci. Technol., 2017, 51, 13397–13406. Gewässer, Osnabrück, 2017.
45 X. Tan, X. Yu, L. Cai, J. Wang and J. Peng, Chemosphere, 65 U. Pirc, M. Vidmar, A. Mozer and A. Kržan, Environ. Sci.
2019, 221, 834–840. Pollut. Res., 2016, 23, 22206–22211.
View Article Online
66 F. De Falco, M. P. Gullo, G. Gentile, E. Di Pace, M. Cocca, 88 K. Magnusson and F. Norén, Screening of microplastic par-
L. Gelabert, M. Brouta-Agnésa, A. Rovira, R. Escudero, ticles in and down-stream a wastewater treatment plant,
R. Villalba, R. Mossotti, A. Montarsolo, S. Gavignano, 2014.
C. Tonin and M. Avella, Environ. Pollut., 2018, 236, 916– 89 J. Talvitie and M. Heinonen, Synthetic microfibers and par-
925. ticles at a municipal waste water treatment plant, 2014.
67 A. Kruschwitz, A. Karle, A. Schmitz and R. Stamminger, 90 E. Besseling, J. T. K. Quik, M. Sun and A. A. Koelmans,
Int. J. Consum. Stud., 2014, 38, 265–277. Environ. Pollut., 2017, 220, 540–548.
68 M. Sillanpää and P. Sainio, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2017, 91 Eurostat, EU population in 2020: almost 448 million, 2020.
24, 19313–19321. 92 N. Bruce, N. Hartline, S. Karba, B. Ruff and S. Sonar,
69 H. Gooijer and R. Stamminger, Tenside, Surfactants, Microfiber pollution and the apparel industry, California,
Deterg., 2016, 53, 402–409. 2016.
70 B. M. Carney Almroth, L. Åström, S. Roslund, 93 S. A. Mason, D. Garneau, R. Sutton, Y. Chu, K. Ehmann,
H. Petersson, M. Johansson and N.-K. Persson, Environ. J. Barnes, P. Fink, D. Papazissimos and D. L. Rogers,
Sci. Pollut. Res., 2018, 25, 1191–1199. Environ. Pollut., 2016, 218, 1045–1054.
71 M. C. Zambrano, J. J. Pawlak, J. Daystar, M. Ankeny, 94 C. Baresel and M. Olshammar, Quantification of microplas-
J. J. Cheng and R. A. Venditti, Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2019, 142, tic discharge from wastewater treatment plants, including
394–407. sanitary sewer overflow events, to the Baltic Sea, 2018.
72 F. Murphy, C. Ewins, F. Carbonnier and B. Quinn, Environ. 95 H. Brombach, G. Weiss and S. Fuchs, Water Sci. Technol.,
Sci. Technol., 2016, 50, 5800–5808. 2005, 51, 119–128.
73 S. A. Carr, J. Liu and A. G. Tesoro, Water Res., 2016, 91, 96 D. Miklos, N. Obermaier and M. Jekel, Mikroplastik:
174–182. Entwicklung eines Umweltbewertungs-konzepts:Erste
74 J. Talvitie, M. Heinonen, J. P. Pääkkönen, E. Vahtera, Überlegungen zur Relevanz von synthetischen Polymeren in
A. Mikola, O. Setälä and R. Vahala, Water Sci. Technol., der Umwelt, Dessau-Roßlau, 2016.
2015, 72, 1495–1504. 97 M. Lykaki, Y.-Q. Zhang, M. Markiewicz, S. Brandt,
75 J. Talvitie, A. Mikola, O. Setälä, M. Heinonen and S. Kolbe, J. Schrick, M. Rabe and S. Stolte, The influence
A. Koistinen, Water Res., 2017, 109, 164–172. of textile finishing agents on the biodegradability of shed
76 K. Hashimoto, M. Sudo, K. Ohta, T. Sugimura, fibres, submitted manuscript, 2021.
H. Yamada and T. Aoki, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2002, 86, 98 K. Arshad and M. Mujahid, Biodegradation of textile
2307–2311. materials, University of Borås, 2011.
77 M. R. Michielssen, E. R. Michielssen, J. Ni and 99 M. Sudhakar, C. Priyadarshini, M. Doble, P. S. Murthy and
M. B. Duhaime, Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol., 2016, 2, R. Venkatesan, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad., 2007, 60, 144–
1064–1073. 151.
78 J. Talvitie, A. Mikola, A. Koistinen and O. Setälä, Water 100 J. P. Da Costa, A. R. Nunes, P. S. M. Santos, A. V. Girão,
Res., 2017, 123, 401–407. A. C. Duarte and T. Rocha-Santos, J. Environ. Sci. Health,
79 S. M. Mintenig, I. Int-Veen, M. G. J. Löder, S. Primpke and Part A: Toxic/Hazard. Subst. Environ. Eng., 2018, 53, 866–
G. Gerdts, Water Res., 2017, 108, 365–372. 875.
80 S. Ziajahromi, P. A. Neale, L. Rintoul and F. D. L. Leusch, 101 G. Gorrasi and R. Pantani, in Synthesis, Structure and
Water Res., 2017, 112, 93–99. Properties of Poly(lactic acid), ed. M. L. Di Lorenzo and R.
81 L. Cabernard, E. Durisch-Kaiser, J.-C. Vogel, D. Rensch Androsch, Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp.
and P. Niederhauser, Mikroplastik in Abwasser und 119–151.
Gewässern, Zurich, 2016. 102 Y. Ren, J. Hu, M. Yang and Y. Weng, J. Polym. Environ.,
82 S. Magni, A. Binelli, L. Pittura, C. G. Avio, C. Della Torre, 2019, 27, 2784–2792.
C. C. Parenti, S. Gorbi and F. Regoli, Sci. Total Environ., 103 Y. Liu, Z. Zhan, H. Ye, X. Lin, Y. Yan and Y. Zhang, RSC
2019, 652, 602–610. Adv., 2019, 9, 10386–10394.
83 M. Samer, in Wastewater Treatment Engineering, ed. M. 104 M. A. Elsawy, K.-H. Kim, J.-W. Park and A. Deep, Reviews,
Samer, InTech, Rijeka, 2015, pp. 1–50. 2017, 79, 1346–1352.
84 K. Conley, A. Clum, J. Deepe, H. Lane and B. Beckingham, 105 P. Stloukal, A. Kalendova, H. Mattausch, S. Laske,
Water Res.: X, 2019, 3, 100030. C. Holzer and M. Koutny, Polym. Test., 2015, 41, 124–
85 R. Dris, J. Gasperi, V. Rocher, M. Saad, N. Renault and 132.
B. Tassin, Environ. Chem., 2015, 12, 592–599. 106 S. Yoshida, K. Hiraga, T. Takehana, I. Taniguchi,
86 W. Van Echelpoel, Microplastic in a biological wastewater H. Yamaji, Y. Maeda, K. Toyohara, K. Miyamoto,
treatment plant and the surrounding freshwater environ- Y. Kimura and K. Oda, Science, 2016, 351, 1196–1199.
ment in Flanders: quantitative assessment, Ghent 107 C. Jönsson, O. L. Arturin, A. C. Hanning, R. Landin,
University, 2014. E. Holmström and S. Roos, Sustainability, 2018, 10, 2457.
87 M. Kazour, S. Terki, K. Rabhi, S. Jemaa, G. Khalaf and 108 M. K. Aliabad, M. Nassiri and K. Kor, Mar. Pollut. Bull.,
R. Amara, Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2019, 146, 608–618. 2019, 143, 125–133.
View Article Online
109 A. M. Mahon, B. O’Connell, M. G. Healy, I. O’Connor, February 2019 on the proposal for a regulation of the
R. Officer, R. Nash and L. Morrison, Environ. Sci. Technol., European Parliament and of the Council on minimum
2017, 51, 810–818. requirements for water reuse (COM(2018)0337 – C8-0220/
110 U. Braun, M. Jekel, G. Gerdts, N. Ivleva and J. Reiber, 2018–2018/0169(COD)), Publications Office of the
Microplastics Analytics: Sampling, Preparation and Detection European Union, 2019.
Methods, 2018. 129 SAPEA, A scientific perspective on microplastics in nature
111 S. Huppertsberg and T. P. Knepper, Anal. Bioanal. Chem., and society, Berlin, 2019.
2018, 410, 6343–6352. 130 SAPEA, Microplastic pollution - scientific perspectives and
112 Z.-M. Wang, J. Wagner, S. Ghosal, G. Bedi and S. Wall, Sci. its impacts, https://ec.europa.eu/research/sam/index.cfm?
Total Environ., 2017, 603–604, 616–626. pg=pollution, (accessed 5 September 2019).
113 I. R. Comnea-Stancu, K. Wieland, G. Ramer, 131 S. Hann, C. Sherrington, O. Jamieson, M. Hickman,
A. Schwaighofer and B. Lendl, Appl. Spectrosc., 2017, 71, P. Kershaw, A. Bapasola and G. Cole, Investigating options
939–950. for reducing releases in the aquatic environment of microplas-
114 M.-T. Nuelle, J. H. Dekiff, D. Remy and E. Fries, Environ. tics emitted by (but not intentionally added in) products,
Pollut., 2014, 184, 161–169. 2018.
115 B. Ravit, K. Cooper, G. Moreno, B. Buckley, I. Yang, 132 B. D. Hardesty, J. Harari, A. Isobe, L. Lebreton,
A. Deshpande, S. Meola, D. Jones and A. Hsieh, AIMS N. Maximenko, J. Potemra, E. Van Sebille, A. D. Vethaak
Environ. Sci., 2017, 4, 809–826. and C. Wilcox, Front. Mar. Sci., 2017, 4, 30.
116 E. Dümichen, A. K. Barthel, U. Braun, C. G. Bannick, 133 The European Commission, Communication from the
K. Brand, M. Jekel and R. Senz, Water Res., 2015, 85, 451– Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
457. European Economic and Social Committee and the
117 T. Maes, M. D. Van der Meulen, L. I. Devriese, Committee of the Regions ‘Closing the loop – An EU action
H. A. Leslie, A. Huvet, L. Frère, J. Robbens and plan for the Circular Economy’, 2015, vol. COM(2015)0.
A. D. Vethaak, Front. Mar. Sci., 2017, 4, 135. 134 The European Commission, Sustainable products in a cir-
118 The European Parliment and the Council of the European cular economy—towards an EU product policy framework
Union, Off. J. Eur. Union, 2015. contributing to the circular economy, Brussels, 2019.
119 Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 - Criteria and meth- 135 The European Commission, Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the
odological standards on good environmental status of European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018
marine waters and specifications and standardised amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, 2018.
methods for monitoring and assessment, and repealing 136 EU Green Deal: Creating a circular economy for plastics,
Decision 2010/477/EU, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/ https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/circular-economy-
2017/848/oj, (accessed 22 February 2020). for-plastics/97160/, (accessed 18 February 2021).
120 I. E. Napper, A. Bakir, S. J. Rowland and R. C. Thompson, 137 S. Manshoven, M. Chistis, A. Vercalsteren, M. Arnold,
Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2015, 99, 178–185. M. Nicolau, E. Lafond, L. Fogh and L. Coscieme, Textiles
121 C. M. Rochman, S. M. Kross, J. B. Armstrong, M. T. Bogan, and the environment in a circular economy, Boeretang,
E. S. Darling, S. J. Green, A. R. Smyth and D. Veríssimo, 2019.
Environ. Sci. Technol., 2015, 49, 10759–10761. 138 S. A. Carr, Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage., 2017, 13, 466–
122 European Union, The European Council in 2010, 469.
Luxembourg, 2011. 139 Polylactic acid or polylactide (PLA), https://bioplastics-
123 House - Energy and Commerce, Microbead-Free Waters Act news.com/polylactic-acid-or-polylactide-pla/, (accessed 9
of 2015, USA, 2015. August 2019).
124 M.-F. Lalonde, An Act with respect to microbeads, 140 S. H. Lee and W. S. Song, Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol., 2011,
Legislative Assembly of Ontario, 2015. 164, 89–102.
125 A. S. Tagg and M. Labrenz, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2018, 52, 141 Z. Li, J. Yang and X. J. Loh, NPG Asia Mater., 2016, 8, e265.
3340–3341. 142 R. J. Müller, I. Kleeberg and W.-D. Deckwer, J. Biotechnol.,
126 The European Commission, Amendments adopted by the 2001, 86, 87–95.
European Parliament on 24 October 2018 on the proposal for 143 C. Kato, A. Honma, S. Sato, T. Okura, R. Fukuda and
a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Y. Nogi, High Pressure Res., 2019, 39, 248–257.
the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the 144 A. M. Grancarić, I. Jerković and A. Tarbuk, Polimeri, 2013,
environment, 2018. 34, 9–14.
127 ECHA proposes to restrict intentionally added microplas- 145 A. Barrett, Bio-sourced biodegradable PLA fibres will
tics, https://echa.europa.eu/-/echa-proposes-to-restrict- replace polyester in textiles, https://bioplasticsnews.com/
intentionally-added-microplastics, (accessed 10 August 2017/08/04/bio-sourced-biodegradable-pla-fibres-polyester-
2019). textiles/, (accessed 9 August 2019).
128 The European Parliment and the Council of the European 146 A. G. Sabale, V. M. Rane, K. Bhagyashri and M. Toke, PLA
Union, European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 (Polylactic Acid): New Era of textiles, https://static.fibre2fa-
View Article Online
shion.com/ArticleResources/PdfFiles/61/6028.pdf, (accessed 167 G. Humpston, P. Willis, D. J. Tyler and S. L.-C. Han,

1 February 2021). Technologies for sorting end of life textiles A technical and
147 J. Brizga, K. Hubacek and K. Feng, One Earth, 2020, 3, 45– economic evaluation of the options applicable to clothing,
53. 2014.
148 Biobased plastics – fostering a resource efficient circular 168 Y. Wang, Y. Zhang, H. Song, Y. Wang, T. Deng and X. Hou,
economy, 2020, https://docs.european-bioplastics.org/pub- J. Cleaner Prod., 2019, 208, 1469–1475.
lications/fs/EuBP_FS_Renewable_resources.pdf, (accessed 169 H. Wu, S. Lv, Y. He and J. P. Qu, Polym. Test., 2019, 77,
1 June 2021). 105882.
149 Soil Degradable Bioplastics for a Sustainable Modern 170 B. Molnar and F. Ronkay, Polym. Bull., 2019, 76, 2387–
Agriculture, ed. M. Malinconico, Springer, 2017. 2398.
150 D. Maga, M. Hiebel and N. Thonemann, Resour., Conserv. 171 L. Navone, K. Moffitt, K.-A. Hansen, J. Blinco, A. Payne
Recycl., 2019, 149, 86–96. and R. Speight, Waste Manage., 2020, 102, 149–160.
151 Bioplastics market data, 2020, https://www.european-bio- 172 Global Eco Fiber Market 2018–2022, https://www.research-
plastics.org/market/, (accessed 1 June 2021). andmarkets.com/reports/4564539/global-eco-fiber-market-
152 Greenpeace, Wegwerfware Kleidung - Repräsentative 2018–2022#pos-0, (accessed 21 February 2020).
Greenpeace-Umfrage zu Kaufverhalten, Tragedauer und der 173 W.-M. Wu, J. Yang and C. S. Criddle, Front. Environ. Sci.
Entsorgung von Mode, Hamburg, 2015. Eng., 2017, 11, 6.
153 M. Haseeb, I. Haouas, M. Nasih, L. W. W. Mihardjo and 174 H. K. McIlwraith, J. Lin, L. M. Erdle, N. Mallos,
K. Jermsittiparsert, Energy, 2020, 196, 117094. M. L. Diamond and C. M. Rochman, Mar. Pollut. Bull.,
154 Y. Yan, C. Wang, D. Ding, Y. Zhang, G. Wu, L. Wang, 2019, 139, 40–45.
X. Liu, C. Du, Y. Zhang and C. Zhao, Acta Ecol. Sin., 2016, 175 Cora Ball - The World’s First Microfiber Catching Laundry
36, 119–125. Ball, https://coraball.com/, (accessed 9 July 2019).
155 Y. Li, Y. Luo and Q. He, J. Text. Inst., 2020, 111, 960– 176 Guppyfriend, Guppyfriend Washing Bag, https://en.guppy-
971. friend.com/pages/so-geht-s, (accessed 12 February 2020).
156 Water Efficiency Manual – for Commercial, Industrial and 177 Stockholm to upgrade major WWTP with advanced MBR
Institutional Facilities, 2009, A joint publication of the technology, https://www.waterworld.com/technologies/
Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental article/16199176/stockholm-to-upgrade-major-wwtp-with-
Assistance and Division of Water Resources of the N.C. advanced-mbr-technology, (accessed 12 October 2020).
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and 178 Z. Wang, T. Lin and W. Chen, Sci. Total Environ., 2020,
Land-of-Sky Regional Council, https://www.gwinnett- 700, 134520.
county.com/static/departments/DWR/pdf/ 179 The European Commission, Evaluation of the Council
NCWaterEfficiencyManual.pdf, (accessed October 2020). Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991, concerning urban
157 V. Bhardwaj and A. Fairhurst, Int. Rev. Retail, Distrib. waste-water treatment, Brussels, 2019.
Consum. Res., 2010, 20, 165–173. 180 EPA, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
158 Textiles 2025, https://thefiberyear.com/fileadmin/pdf/ (NPDES)-Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), https://www.
Abstract.pdf, (accessed 1 February 2021). epa.gov/npdes/combined-sewer-overflows-csos, (accessed
159 E. Bäckström, K. Odelius and M. Hakkarainen, ACS 1 February 2021).
Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2019, 7, 11004–11013. 181 The Ocean Cleanup, The largest cleanup in history,
160 C. S. Bhogle and A. B. Pandit, Indian Chem. Eng., 2018, 60, https://theoceancleanup.com/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwk8b7BRCa
122–140. ARIsAARRTL7XEzUp-MMm53IqfmNgIyGoqm1t0bdUfgxz
161 M. A. Mohsin, M. A. Alnaqbi, R. M. Busheer and Y. Haik, ZmmUM-o-EiCMIUPG5_UaAiJgEALw_wcB, (accessed 28
Catalysis in Industry, 2018, 10, 41–48. September 2020).
162 A. F. Ahmad, A. R. Razali, I. S. M. Razelan and 182 The Ocean Cleanup, The Ocean Cleanup Successfully
W. A. H. W. Hamizan, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., Catches Plastic in Great Pacific Garbage Patch, https://
2019, 469, 012056. theoceancleanup.com/press/press-releases/the-ocean-clean
163 A. Rengel, Recycled Textile Fibres and Textile recycling. An up-successfully-catches-plastic-in-great-pacific-garbage-patch/,
overview of the Market and its possibilities for Public (accessed 28 September 2020).
Procurers in Switzerland, Bern, 2017. 183 S. Anbumani and P. Kakkar, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.,
164 H. W. Koh, D. K. Le, G. N. Ng, X. Zhang, N. Phan-Thien, 2018, 25, 14373–14396.
U. Kureemun and H. M. Duong, Gels, 2018, 4, 43. 184 O. S. Alimi, J. Farner Budarz, L. M. Hernandez and
165 F. Quartinello, S. Vajnhandl, J. Volmajer Valh, N. Tufenkji, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2018, 52, 1704–1724.
T. J. Farmer, B. Vončina, A. Lobnik, E. Herrero Acero, 185 A. A. Koelmans, N. H. Mohamed Nor, E. Hermsen,
A. Pellis and G. M. Guebitz, Microb. Biotechnol., 2017, 10, M. Kooi, S. M. Mintenig and J. De France, Water Res.,
1376–1383. 2019, 155, 410–422.
166 H. McCullough and D. Sun, J. Text. Sci. Fash. Technol., 186 G. S. Zhang and Y. F. Liu, Sci. Total Environ., 2018, 642,
2019, 2, 1–8. 12–20.

Zhang 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zhang 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zhang 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Green Chemistry

View Article Online

Microplastics from textile origin – emission and

Maike Rabe,d Robert Klauer,e Ellen Bendtd and Stefan Stolte*a

Critical Review Green Chemistry

Marta Markiewicz (PhD) is leader of the Contaminant Science

Green Chemistry Critical Review

Critical Review Green Chemistry

species,40 and the water flea Daphnia magna41 and in terrestrial

organisms by forming larger fibre flocs and their larger

Green Chemistry Critical Review

Estimated release [kg

5252 | Green Chem., 2021, 23, 5247–5271

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

Estimated release [kg

45 min length 340 (avg.) DL: 0.0092 259

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

Green Chem., 2021, 23, 5247–5271 | 5253

Critical Review Green Chemistry

Green Chemistry Critical Review

Critical Review Green Chemistry

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

Green Chem., 2021, 23, 5247–5271 | 5257

5258 | Green Chem., 2021, 23, 5247–5271

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021

Green Chemistry Critical Review

Critical Review Green Chemistry

Green Chemistry Critical Review

Critical Review Green Chemistry

Green Chemistry Critical Review

Critical Review Green Chemistry

Green Chemistry Critical Review

Critical Review Green Chemistry

Green Chemistry Critical Review

fate, and toxicological properties of the target compound or References

Critical Review Green Chemistry

2020, 238, 124593. world.com/textile-world/fiber-world/2015/02/man-made-

Green Chemistry Critical Review

Critical Review Green Chemistry

Green Chemistry Critical Review

shion.com/ArticleResources/PdfFiles/61/6028.pdf, (accessed 167 G. Humpston, P. Willis, D. J. Tyler and S. L.-C. Han,

You might also like