If the 1980s gave us “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” is the 2020s turning us into Pod People? It’s official: microplastics are everywhere.
So much so, the pervasive issue of microfiber pollution has evolved from a niche concern into a critical industry-wide challenge, prompting experts to move beyond simple problem identification to debate its preferred nomenclature while the apparel sector grapples with the environmental fallout—and human health implications—of its synthetic, fragmenting products.
Related Stories
In tandem, industry leaders have begun dissecting the complex barriers to progress—from the need to harmonize scientific research and foster data transparency to clarifying the shared responsibility between manufacturers, retailers and consumers alike. With emerging pollution sources like tumble dryer emissions adding new urgency, a collaborative effort—one between scientists, material innovators and brands—is becoming essential to chart a viable path forward for combating microplastic pollution.
In a recent panel, held during Sourcing Journal’s second-annual SJLA summit, two such industry experts convened to dissect the nuances of the problem. Up first? Microfiber’s practical definition and clarified scope.
“A microfiber, by technical definition, is anything less than five micron in length,” said Lewis Shuler, vice president of advanced concepts at Paradise Textiles, the material science hub of Alpine Group.
He also noted that the term is sometimes used in the context of textile construction, particularly when discussing yarns. For example, if a brand uses filament yarns that have a low denier per filament (DPF), that’s a possible microfiber. Using filaments in general—or any yarn with lots of small, short fibers—all contribute to what is considered to be a microfiber.
“I think what’s really interesting is that today microfiber, it’s called microplastic,” Shuler continued. “But actually, the problem is microfiber—and it’s agnostic to what it is, whether it’s natural or synthetic.”
That shift isn’t value-signaling as the update fundamentally redefines the challenge for every brand that has cotton, wool or rayon in its material matrix—or was it cotton knit, cotton coven and polyester knits?
That’s because the majority of these fibers are treated with common chemicals during the modern manufacturing process, relatively average additives like performance chemicals and silicone softeners, such as scent booster beads. And once they shed, they don’t leave.
“An under-discussed area of microfiber shedding is that the microfibers that are emitted to the air during the tumble-drying process; a single laundromat can release over seven trillion microfibers every single year,” said Victoria Fulfer, a microplastic scientist with the 5 Gyres Institute, a California nonprofit that campaigns against plastic pollution. “If you scale that citywide, that’s over one quadrillion microfibers getting out into this air.”
The silent shedding of microscopic fibers has become a catchall concept for all the other concerns related to microplastic. While such discussions were once confined to scientific journals, the microfiber pollution conversation has hit a critical juncture, spilling throughout the entire supply chain—and now shoppers, too.
A recent study by Grove Collaborative and The 5 Gyres Institute found that 56 percent of consumers did not realize that most clothing is made from synthetic (aka plastic-based) materials. Even fresher findings out of the Los Angeles institute have now confirmed that “dryer filtration is a solution for reducing a major source of microplastic pollution—potentially capturing up to 570 trillion fibers annually in the United States,” according to the organization’s research, which was done in collaboration with Canadian charity Ocean Wise.
“Microfibers are the most common type of microplastic found in human lungs; our previous research revealed that dryers are an overlooked source of airborne microfiber pollution,” Fulfer said of the new study “evaluating the efficacy of secondary dryer filtration systems” (more simply: extra lint traps).
For said study, the collaborators conducted tests in a controlled laboratory setting; researchers were to launder (as in wash and dry) new, synthetic fabric swatches, as “according to standard residential household settings” (more simply: the same way most Americans at home do) using three commercially-available filters. All three (one duct, two indoor) of those secondary filters “reduced airborne microfiber emissions, according the report published in the monthly, peer-reviewed scientific journal “Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry” (ET&C). More specifically, the duct filter captured an average of 44 percent of microfibers emitted to air by count compared to the indoor vents, which captured 81 percent and 70 percent, respectively.
Per their estimations—which are conservative in nature, given the controlled lab setting—typical, American-household dryers may emit up to 13.5 trillion synthetic microfibers per week—or 702 trillion per year—across the country.
“If every household used the most effective filter tested, it could reduce microfiber emissions by up to 570 trillion annually,” 5 Gyres said in a statement, clarifying that actual emissions may be higher as “further research is needed to fully understand national-scale impacts.”
“It’s encouraging to see practical, science-based solutions that households can actually put into action—small changes that can make a big difference,” said Lasse Gustavsson, president and CEO of Ocean Wise, a global conservation organization operates out of Vancouver and addresses oceanic issues like overfishing and pollution. Despite a decade of growing awareness, headway has been hindered by three primary barriers, according to Fulfer, who sees progress systemically stymied by a fundamental lack of data sharing from brands reluctant to release proprietary information on their materials and processes.
“The first is that we need to work together with scientists and industry at all levels—whether it’s brands, designers, manufacturers—to come up with solutions that are equitable, economical and scalable,” Fulfer said. “We produce a lot of clothes in this country and other countries every single year; the design solutions that will reduce microfiber pollution need to be scalable—that’s a real hurdle right now.”
Another barrier would be data sharing between scientists and brands and manufacturers, she continued. “If we found a way to anonymize this in a way that protects companies—but where the scientists can still see that data and use it to better understand the reduction in shedding —then that would be really big.”
Lastly, she covered the harmonization of methods.
“There’s a lot of microfiber emission studies out there that use a lot of different methods; that makes it really hard for a brand to know which science to follow,” Fulfer said. Ultimately, any viable path forward depends on developing “equitable, economical and scalable” solutions through unprecedented collaboration between scientists and industry.
There’s also the crucial question of accountability: Who, ultimately, owns the problem? For Shuler, the answer is everyone.
“We all kind of have a responsibility—at a consumer level, you can buy textiles at which you think, maybe, will shed less,” Shuler said. “I mean, we could get into some of those variables, but soft and fuzzy generally means a higher propensity to shed.”
Particularly frustrating in light of California Assembly Bill (AB) 1628—a failed bill from the 2023-24 legislative session that would have required plastic microfiber filters on new residential washing machines sold in the state by 2029. It passed California’s legislature in September 2023, though Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed it a month later. He cited concerns over the cost to consumers, according to his Oct. 8 letter addressing the assembly.
“The bill had made it all the way through the California House and Senate, all the way through Appropriations, and then it was vetoed on the governor’s desk,” Fulfer said of the “incredibly disappointing outcome.”
“While the concern around cost is real, the concern around the cost of cleaning up the environment and the cost of public health is also a very real concern,” Fulfer continued. Regarding the consumer cost, she said it would’ve been an increase between $10 and $20—and that’s “a real cost to the consumer that shouldn’t be ignored,” she added.
“But there are opportunities where this cost can be mitigated or incentivized, whether that’s through subsidiaries or tax breaks,” per Fulfer. The alternative? Telling the concerned consumers to buy their own, as “after-market secondary filters are out there on the market for consumers who are interested,” she suggested. At the time of the 5 Gyres study with Ocean Wise, these filters were “reasonably priced,” ranging from $23-$59.95.
