Environmental Pollution 249 (2019) 136e143

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Pollution
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envpol

Microfiber release from different fabrics during washing*

Libiao Yang a, Fei Qiao a, Kun Lei a, Huiqin Li a, Yu Kang b, Song Cui c, Lihui An a, *
a
State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China
b
Analysis and Test Center, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing, 100029, China
c
School of Water Conservancy and Civil Engineering, Northeast Agricultural University, HarBin, 150030, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Microfiber is a subgroup of microplastics and accounts for a large proportion of microplastics in aquatic
Received 15 October 2018 environment, especially in municipal effluents. The purpose of the present study was to quantify mi-
Received in revised form crofiber shedding from three most populate synthetic textile fabrics: polyester, polyamide, and acetate
1 March 2019
fabrics. The results showed that more microfibers were released after washing with a pulsator laundry
Accepted 5 March 2019
Available online 8 March 2019
machine than a platen laundry machine. The greatest number of microfibers was released from acetate
fabric, which was up to 74,816 ± 10,656 microfibers/m2 per wash, although microfibers were shed from
all materials. Moreover, an increasing trend was found in the number of microfibers shedding from
Keywords:
Domestic washing
synthetic fabrics with the washing temperature increasing, and greater microfiber release occurred when
Textiles washing fabrics with detergent rather than with water alone. The lint filter bag equipped with the
Microfiber pulsator laundry machine retained the longer microfibers (>1000 mm), but not the shorter microfibers
Filter bag (<500 mm) instead of releasing into the drainage system. Our data suggested that microfibers released
Point source during washing of synthetic fabrics may be an important source of microfibers in aquatic environment
due to the increasing production and use of synthetic fabrics globally. Thus, more efficient filtering bags
or other technologies in household washing machines should be developed to prevent and reduce the
release of microfibers from domestic washing.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Microplastic pollution has been observed widely in freshwater
and marine environments worldwide due to the rapid increase in
plastic production. The small size (<5 mm) of microplastics make
them available for interaction with biota at different trophic levels
(Ivar do Sul and Costa, 2014; Wagner et al., 2014), and lastly enter
into the human food web (Yang et al., 2015). Consequently, they
could do a threat on the growth, development, and reproduction of
organisms once ingestion (Wright et al., 2013).
Generally, microplastics in environment are classified into two
major categories based on their sources (Sundt et al., 2014), that is,
primary microplastics and secondary microplastics. Primary
microplastics are plastics released directly into the environment in
the form of micro-sized particles, whereas secondary microplastics
are micro-sized plastic particles originating from the degradation of
*
This paper has been recommended for acceptance by Maria Cristina Fossi.
* Corresponding author. Chinese Research Academy for Environment Sciences,
Beijing, 100012, China.
E-mail address: anlhui@163.com (L. An).
larger plastic items during use, such as shedding from the use of
synthetic polymers in textiles, nets, and other products, but not
used directly in any applications. In addition, microplastics showed
various shapes, including spherical, film, fragment, fiber, and others
(Frias et al., 2010), among which microfibers are the most abundant
in aquatic environments and organisms (Boerger et al., 2010;
Browne et al., 2011; Neves et al., 2015). Compared to the threats
caused by microplastic shape, adult grass shrimp mortality was
significantly higher after exposure to microfibers than to spheres or
fragments (Gray and Weinstein, 2017), implying that microfibers
may pose a greater threat to marine biota than spherical and other
shapes of particles which was also reported by Cole et al. (2011).
An earlier study reported that both natural (e.g., wool and cot-
ton) and synthetic (e.g., polyester and nylon) textile fibers may be
released from domestic washing into the environment (Browne
et al., 2011); therefore, domestic washing has drawn attention as
the most important source of environmental microfibers to aquatic
habitats (Napper and Thompson, 2016; Hernandez et al., 2017;
Almroth et al., 2018). Recently, A report estimated that a single
garment could release more than 1900 fibers per wash (Browne
et al., 2011). Furthermore, 6 kg of textiles made from synthetic

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.03.011
0269-7491/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 L. Yang et al. / Environmental Pollution 249 (2019) 136e143
fabrics (e.g., polyester, polyester-cotton, and acrylic fabrics)
released 140,000e700,000 fibers per wash (Napper and Thompson,
2016). And the release of 0.033e0.039% wet fibers from a polyester
garment per washing was also reported (Dubaish and Liebezeit,
2013). Additionally, 75% more microfibers were released with the
use of detergent for washing compared to the use of water alone
(Hernandez et al., 2017), and the use of a tumble-drying cycle also
promoted a 3.5-fold increase in microfibers compared to washing
alone (Pric et al., 2016). It was surprised that the Norwegian Envi-
ronment Agency reported that about 100 and 600 tons of fibers are
released into the environment from laundries and households,
respectively, every year in Norway (Sundt et al., 2014). Moreover,
the International Union for Conservation of Nature estimated that
microfibers released from the laundering of synthetic textiles
(34.8%) topped the list of sources of environmental microfibers
(Boucher and Friot, 2017). These studies reported the release of
microfibers from domestic washing, however, a comprehensive
profile is unavailable for revealing the release characteristic of
different fabrics with different washing conditions. And it is also
need to compare the effects of different domestic washing ma-
chines on the microfiber release and to find an alternative tool to
prevent and reduce microfiber release during washing.
To evaluate the release characteristics of textiles including
synthetic fabrics and man-made fabrics which account for the main
components in clothing fabric market, the present study focused on
(1) the release characteristics of microfibers from three typical
commercially textiles used in daily life through the quantification
of microfibers; (2) the effects of different washing machine types
(i.e., pulsator vs. platen laundry machine) and washing conditions
(i.e., temperature and detergent) on the release of microfibers; and
(3) the potential strategy for capturing microfibers releasing from
fabrics during washing.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Preparation
Based on the market investigation, three types of fabrics made
of different materials were selected, including two synthetic fibers
of polyester fabric (PE, red) and polyamide fabric (PA, dark black),
and one man-made fiber of acetate fabric (AC, bright black), which
were purchased from a local textile market in Beijing, China. Fabric
physical properties including fabric construction, thickness, weight
per unit area, pilling resistance, and tear strength were listed in
Table 1 and Fig. 1. Before washing test, these fabrics were analyzed
with Fourier Transform Infra-Red spectroscopy (FTIR) to confirm
their materials, and the analysis method was copied from our
previous report (Lei et al., 2017).
Considering the fact that the size of cloth is related to fabric area,
the synthetic fabrics were cut into rectangular pieces of 0.9 m2
(1.5 m
0.6 m) with the weight of 97.71 ± 4.66 g for polyester fab-
ric, 159.80 ± 4.75 g for polyamide fabric, and 172.38 ± 4.22 g for
acetate fabric, respectively. The four edges of each fabric sample
Table 1
Fabric physical properties used in washing experiment.
Parameter Construction Mass per unit area of fabric (g/m2)
Polyester fabrics Plain 108.56 ± 5.18
Polyamide fabrics Plain 177.56 ± 5.28
Acetate fabrics Satin 191.53 ± 4.69
(1) Tear Strength: Tear strength was detested according to GB/T 4802.2e2008 standard.
(2) Pilling resistance: pilling level of fabrics was detested according to GB/T 4802.2e2008 standard, and the grading scale of 1e5 was evaluated under the conditions: 590 N,
150 times.
137
were sewed with cotton thread to avoid the release of fibers from
the cut edges during washing. Before the washing tests, each syn-
thetic fabric was pre-washed with filtered tap water (1 mm) to
remove possible non-fabric particles on the surface of the synthetic
fabrics as well as loosely bound polymeric material arising from
fabrication and cutting, and then air-dried completely.
Household laundry detergent (Reward, China) was purchased
from a local WUMART supermarket. And two main types of com-
mercial household laundry machines (Haier Electronics, Qingdao,
China) - a pulsator laundry machine and a platen laundry machine -
with a similar washing power were purchased from Suning Elec-
tronics (Beijing, China).
2.2. Washing
To evaluate the effects of normal domestic washing conditions
on microfiber release from synthetic fabrics, experiments were
performed to compare washing machine type, temperature, and
detergent. A standardized washing procedure of quick washing was
selected manually from the operating panel for the small pieces of
fabrics, and the cycle time of each was about 15min, including
10min for washing, 3min for rinsing, and 2min for automatic op-
erations (e.g., adding water, discharging effluent, and spinning dry),
including one time for main washing, one time for rinsing, and one
time for centrifugation.
For the platen laundry machine, 15 L of filtered tap water with or
without 5 mL of laundry detergent was poured into the container
by hand according to the manufacturer's instructions for washing;
for the pulsator laundry machine, all operations were automatically
performed except for the addition of laundry detergent with a same
ratio to the platen laundry machine. After adding the detergent, the
pH of washing water changed from 6.65 ± 0.08 to 6.75 ± 0.05,
which could be ignored for the little change. The washing water
temperature was set to 30  C, 40  C, or 60  C. Before the washing
test, blank runs were performed without synthetic fabrics, and each
washing test was repeated three times. After each washing test, the
machine was rinsed three times with filtered tap water to avoid
cross contamination of fibers among washes; the first rinse effluent
was collected and mixed with the washing effluent, while the
effluent from the remaining two rinses was discharged directly.
2.3. Filtration
After washing, all washing effluent was collected through the
discharge pipe and filtered for quantification of microfibers. To
avoid blocking of the filter, three rounds of 1.0 L of effluent were
filtered through a PTFE 5.0 mm pore size membrane (Ф ¼ 5.0 cm)
powered by a peristaltic pump connected via a Teflon tube. After
filtering the effluent, another 1.0 L of filtered tap water was fluxed
through the filtration system to wash residual microfibers inside
the tubes. Then, the filters were left in a glass dish for counting and
covered with a protective aluminum case to avoid possible airborne
residues and contaminants.
Yarn diameter mm Thickness mm Pilling Resistance Tear Strength, N
Warp Weft
101.81 ± 4.25 0.21 ± 0.002 5 446.11 ± 22.43 522.71 ± 11.40
119.88 ± 2.73 0.29 ± 0.005 5 1310.10 ± 23.67 1090.92 ± 17.46
217.22 ± 4.94 0.31 ± 0.005 3 443.08 ± 41.12 624.23 ± 47.70
138 L. Yang et al. / Environmental Pollution 249 (2019) 136e143

Fig. 1. Surface appearances of fabrics and Fourier Transform Infrared spectra corresponding reference materials from ATR spectral database, vertical axis represents transmission in
standard optical density units. (A). Polyester fabrics; (B). Polyamide fabrics (Nylon 6); (C). Acetate fabrics. Black bar indicates 500 mm.

2.4. Counting and imaging and the microfibers were counted in 30 grids selected randomly
from each part following a uniform rule that a microfiber was
Microfibers were counted according to the method described by counted only if more than half of its volume was located in the grid.
De Falco et al. (2018). To count the numbers of microfibers released Then, the microfiber number was calculated according to Equations
from synthetic fabrics, the filter membrane was placed on a stain- (1) and (2):
less steel sieve 1 mm
1 mm in size (Ф ¼ 7.0 cm, height ¼ 2 cm,
1 mm2), and the sieve was transferred to the platform of an P30 P30 P P30
ai¼1 ni þ bi¼1 niþ 30
ci¼1 ni þ di¼1 ni
OLYMPUS SZ61 optical stereomicroscope (Shanghai Fulai Optical Ni ðitems=filterÞ ¼
Sfilter
Technology Co., LTD, China) for observation with a magnification of 120
40
. Before counting, the filter membrane was divided into four (1)
equal sections for easier and more accurate counting of microfibers,
 L. Yang et al. / Environmental Pollution 249 (2019) 136e143
 . 
Ni
C items m2 ¼
0:9
where ni is the number of microfibers in each grid; 120 is the total
grids counted on each filter membrane; ai, bi, ci, and di are the
numbers of microfibers in each quadrant; Sfilters is the membrane
area used for filtering effluent (1384.74 mm2); Ni is the number of
microfibers on each filter membrane; ‾Ni is the average number of
microfibers on each filter (i ¼ 3); C is the number of microfibers
released from a unit of area (1 m2) of synthetic fabrics (items/m2);
and 0.9 is the area of each piece of synthetic fabric
(1.50 m
0.60 m).
To determine the lengths of microfibers released from synthetic
fabrics, the microfibers were imaged using a Leica DM4M digital
microscope (Germany). The length and diameter of the released
microfibers were determined using the embedded scale bar. Then,
the weight of microfibers released from synthetic fabrics could be
estimated using an empirical formula (Napper and Thompson,
2016):
.   shedding from the three synthetic fabrics was observed in the
D2
Grams of microfiber m2 fabric ¼ C
p

L
r
4
where C is the number of microfibers released from 1 m2 of syn-
thetic fabric (items/m2); D is the average diameter of the micro-
fibers; and r is the density of the synthetic fabric (polyester: 1.37 g/
cm3, polyamide: 1.15 g/cm3, acetate: 1.30 g/cm3).
2.5. Removal of microfibers with a lint filter bag
As part of the pulsator laundry machine, a lint filter bag is
generally positioned on the inside wall, which is used to collect
dust and dirt for dramatically cleaner clothing. To evaluate the
possible removal of microfibers by the lint filter bag, the washing
effluent from the pulsator laundry machine using water only at
60  C was filtered in three rounds, first through a Nylon mesh filter
bag with a core size of 1.18 ± 0.05 mm equipped with the pulsator
laundry machine, and subsequently through a PTFE 5.0 mm pore
size membrane for counting of microfibers.
2.6. Data analysis
To evaluate differences in the number of microfibers released
from the synthetic fabrics, two-sample t-test and one-way analysis
of variance with Tukey's post-hoc test were performed among the
experimental groups, including the type of synthetic fabric and
washing conditions. All statistical analyses were carried out using
OriginPro 2017 (64-bit), and the numbers of microfibers released
were regarded as statistically different when p < 0.05 among
different washing conditions or types of synthetic fabrics.
3. Results
3.1. FTIR analysis of synthetic fabrics
To confirm the identity of these materials, the entire spectrum of
each piece of textile was analyzed using the Bio-Rad KnowItAll®
Informatics System 2018 (64-bit) - IR Spectral Library (Bio-Rad
Laboratories, California, USA). Following corrections for noise and
baseline, each spectrum was searched and matched automatically
to the potential spectra from the database of known polymers or
compounds. The identity of fabrics was then determined based on
matching peak wavenumber positions. After blasting against the
standard data, polyester fabrics, polyamide fabrics, and acetate
139
fabrics were matched to the highest ratios of poly(ethylene tere-
phthalate), Nylon 6 (caprolactam), and acetate, respectively (Fig. 1).
(2)
3.2. Microfiber release from synthetic fabrics during washing
As predicted, large numbers of microfibers were released from
the three types of synthetic fabrics after washing in the platen
laundry machine (Fig. 2). The number of microfibers followed the
order polyamide fabric > acetate fabric > polyester fabric both with
and without detergent (Table 2). Moreover, detergent promoted the
release of microfibers from the fabrics by (1.22e5.62)-fold. And
significant more microfibers were released from polyester fabric
washed at 60  C than at 30  C (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, the other
synthetic fabrics showed a slight increasing trend, but not signifi-
cantly (p > 0.05), with increasing washing temperature from 30  C
to 60  C using both water and detergent. The greatest number of
microfibers was shed from polyamide fabric after washing at 60  C
with detergent (49,619 ± 9,749 items/m2).
Similar to the release characteristics of microfibers washed in
the platen laundry machine, an increasing trend of microfiber
(3) discharged effluent after washing with the pulsator laundry ma-
chine (1.07e2.13)-fold (p > 0.05) (Table 2). Temperature and
detergent also promoted the release of microfibers, especially from
polyester fabric, which released more microfibers when washed at
60  C significantly than at 30  C or 40  C (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, the
number of microfibers followed a different order when detergent
was added, with the exception of washes at 30  C: acetate fab-
ric > polyamide fabric > polyester fabric. The greatest number of
microfibers was shed from acetate fabric, which released
74,816 ± 10,656 items/m2 after washing at 60  C.
In addition, the average length of microfibers shed from polyester
fabric was 499.49 ± 505.65 mm, which was shorter significantly than
those of other two fabrics (polyamide: 1056.53 ± 761.42 mm, acetate:
1128.00 ± 750.72 mm) (p < 0.05) (Fig. 3); however, no significant
differences were found in the lengths of microfibers from the same
textiles under different washing conditions (p > 0.05).
3.3. Mass of microfibers released from synthetic fabrics
The diameters of microfibers released from polyamide (average:
16.61 ± 5.96 mm, range: 5.59e29.66 mm) and acetate fabrics
(average:15.17 ± 5.88 mm, range: 6.22e24.89 mm) were of similar
size. However, they were significantly thicker than microfibers
released from polyester fabric (p < 0.05) (average: 13.25 ± 4.24 mm,
range: 5.07e19.54 mm). Using Equation (3), the corresponding
weights of microfibers released from synthetic fabrics were esti-
mated, ranging from 0.07 ± 0.04 to 2.18 ± 0.17 mg/m2 for polyester
fabric, from 8.61 ± 1.03 to 18.35 ± 10.73 mg/m2 for polyamide fab-
ric, and from 6.30 ± 1.31 to 19.81 ± 2.82 mg/m2 for acetate fabric.
Based on the weights of the pieces of textiles tested, the microfibers
shed from these textiles could also be expressed as the number per
unit mass of textile (polyester: 7.25 ± 3.70 to 212.72 ± 16.69 items/
g; polyamide: 184.37 ± 21.94 to 392.68 ± 229.63 items/g; acetate:
124.25 ± 25.86 to 390.62 ± 55.63 items/g).
3.4. Removal of microfibers by the lint filter bag
The length of microfibers releasing from polyester fabric
(499.49 ± 505.65 mm, ranging from 25.60 mm to 1770.00 mm) was
shorter significantly (p < 0.05) than those from polyamide fabric
(1056.53 ± 761.42 mm, ranging from 18.67 mm to 3490.21 mm) and
acetate fabric (1128.00 ± 750.72 mm, ranging from 117.45 mm to
3444.42 mm), while there was no significant difference on the
microfibers length between polyamide fabric and acetate fabric
140 L. Yang et al. / Environmental Pollution 249 (2019) 136e143

Fig. 2. Microfibers releasing from synthetic fabrics after washing. Black bar indicates 500 mm.

Table 2
Number of microfibers releasing from synthetic fabrics with different washing conditions (items/m2).

Washing Machine Platen laundry machine Pulsator laundry machine

Washing temperature 30  C 40  C 60  C 30  C 40  C 60  C

Water Polyester fabric 788 ± 402 1032 ± 150 13960 ± 2406 885 ± 86 1113 ± 371 21362 ± 1775
Polyamide fabric 32736 ± 3896 35144 ± 5747 35241 ± 4067 36820 ± 4618 37950 ± 11842 43564 ± 1737
Acetate fabric 23799 ± 4954 32999 ± 5372 33936 ± 1027 31239 ± 4622 60704 ± 20877 72130 ± 10552

Detergent Polyester fabric 1710 ± 562 3946 ± 444 18859 ± 908 2012 ± 228 4720 ± 1774 23094 ± 1812
Polyamide fabric 44660 ± 4886 46417 ± 5731 49619 ± 9749 50686 ± 12469 59870 ± 17042 69723 ± 40773
Acetate fabric 29024 ± 7061 40656 ± 6103 41798 ± 510 31885 ± 1187 67245 ± 23552 74816 ± 10656

(p > 0.05). Moreover, there was also no notable difference on the
length of microplastics releasing from fabrics washing with pul-
sator laundry machine or platen laundry machine. Pulsator laundry
machines, but not platen laundry machines, are generally equipped
with a lint filter bag as a necessary part of the machine, which
collects dust and other particles shed from textiles. After filtration
through the lint filter bag, the microfibers were effectively removed
from the effluent of the washing of polyamide and acetate fabrics
(p < 0.05), but not for the effluent from the washing of polyester
fabric (p > 0.05) (Fig. 4). This difference could be explained by the
microfiber lengths from the various textiles, implying that the
microfibers with shorter lengths or lower length/width ratios could
pass longitudinally through the lint filter bag.
4. Discussion
4.1. Impact of fabrics characteristics
From the present results, it looked like that the microfiber
release was dependent on multiple factors. For example, the
polyester fabric and acetate fabric had a similar tear strength, while
the polyester fabric and polyamide fabric had the same level of
pilling resistance. However, polyester fabric released the least
numbers of microfiber among the three kinds of fabrics, and more
microfibers were released from acetate fabric and polyamide fabric
compared to polyester fabric. This might be related to the weight
per unit area of fabrics which is dependent on yarn diameter,
thickness of fabric, and linear density. That is, the number of mi-
crofiber will increase with the yarn count due to the larger amount
of fiber per cross section. In contrast, a higher number of yarns per
unit length will result in a tighter structure with lower probability
to microfiber release. Thus, these parameters should be considered
in product design to create yarn and textiles that release less
microfibers during the washing process.
Moreover, the textile geometry is another key factor which af-
fects microplastic release during washing. For example, the knitted
fabric could release more microplastics generally in comparison to
woven fabric because the structure is less compact. And fabric
made of short staple fiber, rather than fabrics made with contin-
uous filaments, show higher microplastics release (De Falco et al.,
 L. Yang et al. / Environmental Pollution 249 (2019) 136e143 141

Fig. 3. Length distribution (%) of microfibers before and after filtration through a lint filter bag (pore size: 1.18 ± 0.05 mm).

2018). This might be one of reasons why more microfibers were
released from polyamide fabric and acetate fabric than polyester
fabric in the present experiment. In addition, mechanical factor
during yarn production such as air textured yarn, dying process
(cone dyed one or mass cone dyed one) can also influence micro-
plastic release (Napper and Thompson, 2016). So, the results of
acetate fabric might be due to lower pilling performance. Of course,
more studies are needed to better understand the role of textile
structure which can be re-designed to prevent microfiber release.
4.2. Impact of washing machine type on microfiber release
Both pulsator washing machine and platen washing machine
generated large numbers of microfibers during washing, supporting
the report that the washing process contributes more to fabric
damage than does use or wear (up to 90% of damage can be caused by
the washing process) (Carr,1995). The weight loss of each type textile
after washing also agreed with this trend, where 0.0068e0.12W of
polyester fabric, 0.79e1.20W of polyamide fabric, and 0.58e1.01W
142 L. Yang et al. / Environmental Pollution 249 (2019) 136e143
Fig. 4. Removal of microfibers from washing effluent by a lint filter bag with a pore
size of 1.18 ± 0.05 mm.
of acetate fabric was lost after washing using the platen laundry
machine, while 0.0077e0.20W of polyester fabric, 0.89e1.69W of
polyamide fabric, and 0.76e1.82W of acetate fabric was lost after
washing using the pulsator laundry machine.
In addition, the pulsator washing machine had a more powerful
effect on the number of microfibers shed, ranging from 1.08-fold to
2.13-fold increases over the corresponding platen machine washing
conditions, although the machines had similar powers. The lint
filter bag equipped on the pulsator laundry machine effectively
retained most longer microfibers (>1000 mm), but did not collect
shorter microfibers (<500 mm), indicating that more effective
filtering bags or other tools should be developed to remove these
microfibers and that, at a minimum, lint filter bags should be
required on all available commercial domestic washing machines.
4.3. Impacts of washing temperature on microfiber release
The results showed that temperature promoted the release of
microfibers from polyester fabrics, which released more fibers at
60  C than at 30  C or 40  C, as well as acetate fabric, which released
more fibers at 60  C than 30  C. Only a slight increase in the number
of microfibers released from polyamide fabric was observed with
the increase of washing temperature from 30  C to 60  C. These
results differed from those of Hernandez et al. (2017), who found no
statistical differences in the mass of fibers released at different
temperatures (25  C, 40  C, 60  C, and 80  C). Meanwhile, no sig-
nificant difference occurred when the temperature was increased
from 30  C to 40  C for any of these synthetic fabrics, in agreement
with Zambrano et al. (data unpublished), who found no significant
difference in microfiber generation with increasing temperature
(25  C and 44  C), implying that low washing temperatures have no
apparent impact on microfiber release. Therefore, synthetic fabric
textiles should be washed at low temperatures such as 30  C, as
higher temperatures tend to promote microfiber release. So, this
finding also suggests that high temperatures during washing
should be avoided.
4.4. Impacts of detergent on microfiber release
Compared with washing using water only, more microfibers
were shed from the synthetic fabrics when washed with detergent,
especially polyester fabric, which increased from 788 ± 402 items/
m2 fabric to 1710 ± 562 items/m2 fabric at 30  C and from
1032 ± 150 to 3946 ± 444 at 40  C, which was higher significantly
the natural fibers with >1900 fibers per wash of a single garment
(Browne et al., 2011). Similarly, De Falco et al. (2018) also reported
that the number of microfibers increased from 162 ± 52 items/g
fabric when washed with water alone to 1273 ± 177 items/g fabric
using liquid detergent, and to 3538 ± 664 items/g fabric using
powdered detergent.
These available data indicated that the use of detergent pro-
moted the release of microfibers from synthetic fabrics during
washing. A possible reason for this is that some components of
detergent, such as surfactants, are deposited on the fiber surface,
reducing frictional forces and promoting damage to fibers
(Hernandez et al., 2017), to finally generate and release microfibers.
In addition, some factors of detergents including formulation
(presence of oxidizing agents), pH, form (liquid or powder) also
have effects on microplastic release when washing (De Falco et al.,
2018a,b). However, an earlier study reported that the detergent
composition (liquid or powder) or overdosing of detergent had no
significantly influence on the microplastic release (Hernandez et al.,
2017). Regardless, it looked like that microfiber release depends on
washing temperature mainly, as relatively hydrophobic synthetic
fibers are not noticeably affected by alkaline detergent solutions if
washed at or below the recommended temperatures (Hernandez
et al., 2017).
4.5. Estimation the release of microfibers from textiles
The present results were obtained from three synthetic fabrics
after one washing test, and numerous microfibers were shed from
these fabrics under different washing conditions, providing direct
evidence for the release of microfibers from synthetic fabrics dur-
ing washing. Such microfibers can enter aquatic environments
directly through sewage systems, especially shorter microfibers
that are not retained effectively by lint filter bags. Compared to
9.40e11.33 items/L microfibers which had been detected in in-
fluents from a typical sewage treatment plant in Beijing (data not
show), it is estimated that the concentrations of microfibers in
washing water were about 20-fold for polyester fiber, about 150-
fold for acetate fabrics, and near to 200-fold for polyamide fabric
in influents. The proportion of microplastics in the environment
originating from textiles is estimated to range from 20% to 34.8%
due to increasing global production and use of synthetic fibers
(Eunomia, 2016; Boucher and Friot, 2017), indicating that micro-
fibers from laundry washing are the greatest source of micro-
plastics in the environment. This finding agrees with the
production of synthetic fibers, which accounts for 60% of total fiber
production (Klar et al., 2014).
Based on the Global Trade Analysis of Synthetic Fibre Report in
2012 (Nayak et al., 2012), the global production capacities of
polyester fiber, polyamide fabric (Nylon), and acetate fabric (acrylic
fiber) were 53, 5.5, and 2.3 million tons, respectively. Therefore,
about 36.04e636 tons of microfibers are estimated to be released
from polyester fabrics, 434.5e660 tons from polyamide fabric, and
133.4e232.3 tons from acetate fabric after washing once using a
platen laundry machine, while about 40.81e1060 tons of micro-
fibers from polyester fabric, 489.5e929.5 tons of microfibers from
polyamide fabric, and 174.8e418.6 tons of microfibers from acetate
fabric may be released after washing once with a pulsator laundry
machine. Consequently, microfibers accounted for the majority of
microplastics that had been detected in aquatic environment,
sediment, effluents, even to organism tissues. For example,
microfibers were the second most common type of debris in Lake
Michigan (Eriksen et al., 2013a,b).
Of course, synthetic fabrics are used not only in clothes, but also
in furniture, geotextiles, cloth, sports equipment, backpacks, stuffed
 L. Yang et al. / Environmental Pollution 249 (2019) 136e143
toys, buildings, and agricultural applications. However, a steady
decrease in fiber loss was found for polyester fabric and acetate
fabric with an increasing number of washing cycles (Napper and
Thompson, 2016), indicating that microfiber release from various
textiles is also related to the number of washing times. Due to the
persistent nature of synthetic fibers, more attention should be paid
to reducing inputs from domestic washing of textiles, regardless of
whether the number of microfibers released is overestimated. An
alternative is to use the synthetic-natural combination in cloth
design. For example, the polyester-cotton blend released around
80% fewer microfibers than acrylic (Napper and Thompson, 2016).
5. Conclusion
The present study demonstrated that lots of microfibers are
shed from three types of synthetic fabrics during washing under
different conditions and in different washing machines, among
which polyester released the lowest number of microfibers but the
shortest. Moreover, both increased washing temperature and
detergent use promoted the release of microfibers from all tested
synthetic fabrics. To reduce or eliminate microfibers from effluent
before entering the aquatic environment, further work should
assess a wide array of washing machines and washing conditions
due to the large annual production and widespread use of synthetic
fabrics worldwide. Moreover, existing lint filter bags can effectively
capture these longer microfibers only, but not for the shorter
microfibers.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Key Research and
Development Plan (2016YFC1402206), National Natural Science
Foundation of China (21577137), and Major Science and Technology
Program for Water Pollution Control and Treatment (No.
2009ZX07528).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.03.011.
References
€m, L., Roslund, S., Petersson, H., Johansson, M., Persson, N.K.,
Almroth, B.M.C., Åstro
2018. Quantifying shedding of synthetic fibers from textiles; a source of
microplastics released into the environment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25,
1191e1199.
Boerger, C.M., Lattin, G.L., Moore, S.L., Moore, C.J., 2010. Plastic ingestion by
planktivorous fishes in the north Pacific central gyre. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60,
2275e2278.
143
Boucher, J., Friot, D., 2017. Primary Microplastics in the Oceans: A Global Evaluation
of Sources. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, p. 43.
Browne, M.A., Crump, P., Niven, S.J., Teuten, E., Tonkín, A., Galloway, T.,
Thompson, R., 2011. Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines worldwide:
sources and sinks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 9175e9179.
Carr, C.M., 1995. Physical and chemical effects of domestic laundering processes. In:
Chemistry of Textiles Industry. Blackie Academic & Professional, London.
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., Galloway, T.S., 2011. Microplastics as contami-
nants in the marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 2588e2597.
De Falco, F., Gullo, M.P., Gentile, G., Di Pace, E., Cocca, M., Gelabert, L., Brouta-
Agne sa, M., Rovira, A., Escudero, R., Villalba, R., Mossotti, R., Montarsolo, A.,
Gavignano, S., Tonin, C., Avella, M., 2018. Evaluation of microplastic release
caused by textile washing processes of synthetic fabrics. Environ. Pollut. 236,
916e925.
Dubaish, F., Liebezeit, G., 2013. Suspended microplastics and black carbon particles
in the Jade system, Southern north Sea. Water Air Soil Pollut. 224, 1352e1359.
Eriksen, M., Mason, S., Wilson, S., Box, C., Zellers, A., Edwards, W., Farley, H.,
Amato, S., 2013a. Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian
great Lakes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 77 (1e2), 177e182.
Eriksen, M., Mason, S., Wilson, S., Box, C., Zellers, A., Edwards, W., Farley, H.,
Amato, S., 2013b. Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian
great Lakes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 77 (1e2), 177e182.
Eunomia, 2016. Plastics in the Marine Environment. Eunomia Research & Consul-
ting Ltd, Bristol UK.
Frias, J.P.G.L., Sobral, P., Ferreira, A.M., 2010. Organic pollutants in microplastics from
two beaches of the Portuguese coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60, 1988e1992.
Gray, A.D., Weinstein, J.E., 2017. Size- and shape-dependent effects of microplastic
particles on adult daggerblade grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio). Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 36 (11), 3074e3080.
Hernandez, E., Nowack, B., Mitrano, D.M., 2017. Polyester textiles as a source of
microplastics from households: a mechanistic study to understand microfiber
release during washing. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (12), 7036e7046.
Ivar do Sul, J.A., Costa, M.F., 2014. The present and future of microplastic pollution in
the marine environment. Environ. Pollut. 185, 352e364.
Klar, M., Gunnarsson, D., Prevodnik, A., Hedfors, C., Dahl, U., 2014. Natur-
skyddsfo €reningen. Allt du (inte) vill veta om plast.
Lei, K., Qiao, F., Liu, Q., Wei, Z.L., Qi, H.L., Cui, S., Yue, X., Deng, Y.X., 2017. Micro-
plastics releasing from personal care and cosmetic products in China. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 123, 122e126.
Napper, I.E., Thompson, R.C., 2016. Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres
from domestic washing machines: effects of fabric type and washing condi-
tions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 112 (1e2), 39e45.
Nayak, D.P., Rout, T.K., Nagle, U., 2012. Global Trade Analysis of Synthetic Fibre.
Textiles Committee.
Neves, D., Sobral, P., Ferreira, J.L., Pereira, T., 2015. Ingestion of microplastics by
commercial fish off the Portuguese coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 101, 119e126.
Pric, U., Vidmar, M., Mozer, A., Krzan, A., 2016. Emission of microplastic fibers from
microfiber fleece during domestic washing. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23 (21),
22206e22211.
Sundt, P., Schulze, P.E., Syversen, F., 2014. Sources of microplastic pollution to the
marine environment. In: Report No. M-321. Environment Agency
(Miljødirektoratet), Norwegian, p. 86.
Wagner, M., Scherer, C., Alvarez-Munoz, D., Brennholt, N., Bourrain, X., Buchinger, S.,
et al., 2014. Microplastics in freshwater ecosystems: what we know and what
we need to know. Environ. Sci. Eur. 26, 12.
Wright, S.L., Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S., 2013. The physical impacts of micro-
plastics on marine organisms: a review. Environ. Pollut. 178, 483e492.
Yang, D.Q., Shi, H.H., Li, L., Li, J.N., Jabeen, K., Kolandhasamy, P., 2015. Microplastic
pollution in table salts from China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 13622e13627.
Zambrano, M., Venditti, R., Pawlak, J., Daystar, J., Ankeny, M., Cheng, J.: https://
baumwollboerse.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Venditti_R_Bremen2018-to-
submit.pdf.