Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Synthetic microfiber emissions to land rival those to waterbodies and are growing

  • Jenna Gavigan ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    jngavigan@gmail.com

    Affiliation Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, United States of America

  • Timnit Kefela,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, United States of America

  • Ilan Macadam-Somer,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology

    Affiliation Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, United States of America

  • Sangwon Suh,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, United States of America

  • Roland Geyer

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, United States of America

Synthetic microfiber emissions to land rival those to waterbodies and are growing

  • Jenna Gavigan, 
  • Timnit Kefela, 
  • Ilan Macadam-Somer, 
  • Sangwon Suh, 
  • Roland Geyer
PLOS
x

Abstract

Synthetic microfibers are found virtually everywhere in the environment, but emission pathways and quantities are poorly understood. By connecting regionalized global datasets on apparel production, use, and washing with emission and retention rates during washing, wastewater treatment, and sludge management, we estimate that 5.6 Mt of synthetic microfibers were emitted from apparel washing between 1950 and 2016. Half of this amount was emitted during the last decade, with a compound annual growth rate of 12.9%. Waterbodies received 2.9 Mt, while combined emissions to terrestrial environments (1.9 Mt) and landfill (0.6 Mt) were almost as large and are growing. Annual emissions to terrestrial environments (141.9 kt yr-1) and landfill (34.6 kt yr-1) combined are now exceeding those to waterbodies (167.2 kt yr-1). Improving access to wastewater treatment is expected to further shift synthetic microfiber emissions from waterbodies to terrestrial environments. Preventing emissions at the source would therefore be a more effective mitigation measure.

Introduction

Plastic pollution has emerged as a key environmental issue in recent years. Global production and use of plastics, or synthetic polymers, has grown at a compound annual growth rate of 8.3% since the beginning of mass production around 1950 [1]. Annual plastic production has surpassed the output of most other man-made materials [1]. Half of all plastics ever made by humankind were produced in the last 13 years [2]. Between 1950 and 2017 an estimated 9,200 million metric tonnes (Mt) of virgin plastics were produced, of which 5,300 Mt were discarded in landfills, dumps, or the natural environment [2].

Synthetic fibers make up 14% of global plastics production [2] and can generate synthetic microfibers through fragmentation and degradation [38]. Synthetic microfibers are considered a type of microplastic, which is typically defined by the longest dimension being less than 5mm [9]. Microplastics have raised concerns due to their increased bioavailability, impacts on low-trophic organisms through the uptake of toxic chemicals [3,10,11], and increased risk of mortality due to ingestion [12]. Microfibers constitute a significant fraction of microplastics accumulating in freshwater [13,14], marine [10,15], coastal [6,16], terrestrial [1719], and arctic ecosystems [20] where they pose risks to aquatic organisms and terrestrial biodiversity [12,2124]. Humans are also impacted by the inhalation of airborne microfibers and consumption of microfibers found in common foods such as water, alcohol, seafood, sugar, and honey [25,26]. Current literature suggests that microfibers may bioaccumulate in the lungs and trigger inflammation, however, the human health impacts are not well understood [27].

Apparel washing has been established as a major source of synthetic microfiber emissions [38]. Quantifying the amount of synthetic microfibers emitted to the environment, however, has been challenging due to large gaps in data and the global scale of emissions. Fibers in clothing undergo mechanical fragmentation during the washing process, thereby releasing microfibers [3,28]. Various factors influence microfiber release rates, including garment age [3], washing machine type [3,7], and detergent use [4,5,7]. While previous studies focus on washing machine emissions, a significant fraction of global apparel washing is done by hand, from which lower shed rates are expected as compared to machine washing. Laundry effluent conveys microfibers into wastewater streams and is either processed by wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) or emitted directly into the natural environment [6]. Wastewater treatment plants with preliminary, primary, and secondary treatment can remove up to 98–99% of microfibers which are then retained in WWTP biosolids [2937]. Biosolids are commonly used as soil amendments, providing a route for synthetic microfibers into terrestrial environments where they can remain detectable in soils for up to fifteen years after application [17,18,38]. Microfibers that are not removed during treatment typically fall within the smallest size range and are ejected into receiving fresh or marine waterbodies [33].

This study presents a global material flow analysis of synthetic microfiber release from apparel washing covering the period from 1950 to 2016, i.e. from the beginning of mass production of synthetic fibers to the present. We take a new approach, using time-dependent modeling of regional in-use stocks of synthetic fibers in apparel and shed rates during the washing process that distinguish between hand and machine washing by region. Furthermore, we compile regional wastewater treatment data in order to estimate the quantity of microfibers that end up in untreated wastewater, treated effluents, and biosolids from treatment plants. The final step incorporates biosolid management data and estimates how much of the synthetic microfibers from apparel washing enters four initial compartments: fresh and marine waterbodies, terrestrial environments, landfills, and incineration (S1 Fig in S1 File). For this analysis, we group fresh and marine waterbodies into one category which will be referred to as “waterbodies” throughout the text below.

Methods

Our calculations were based on: (i) global apparel production by year, (ii) regionalized global consumption and in-use stock estimates, (iii) regionalized end-of-life apparel estimates, (iv) estimates of microfiber emissions from apparel washing, and (v) the fate of microfiber emitted from washing considering the regional share of wastewater treated and the fate of sludge from wastewater treatment plants (S1 Fig in S1 File). What follows is an elaboration of each step.

Annual global apparel production

Global synthetic fiber production data from 1980 to 2016 were generated by reconciling multiple global data sources including The Fiber Year 2017, PCI WoodMackenzie, and Orbichem Final [3941]. These data sets were combined by taking the mean values. To estimate synthetic fiber production from 1950–1980, synthetic fiber’s share of total plastic production from 1980–1990 was calculated. The share varied between 14% and 16% with an average of 15%. The value of 15% was used to calculated total fiber production as share of total plastic production for 1950–1980 from existing data [1]. Each fiber type’s average share of total fiber production from 1980–1990 was calculated and showed little variation. The average fiber type shares were used to calculate the amount of each fiber type produced from our total fiber production data from 1950–1980 (S1 Data in S2 File).

Next, we estimated the mass of synthetic fibers used for apparel production (S1 Data in S2 File). Market segmentation data for polyester and nylon were used as a proxy to represent the market segmentation of all synthetic fibers from 1990 to 2016 [41]. We then used linear regression to estimate the market segmentation between 1950 and 1990. To differentiate between fiber types, we set the mass of each fiber type present in apparel to be proportional to the mass of each fiber type produced annually (S1 Data in S2 File). During apparel production, fiber losses occur from fabric cutting, trimming, and mistakes [42]. The amount of fiber lost during the apparel production process is estimated to be 10% to 15% of all fiber used [43,44]. For this study, the value for the amount of fiber lost during apparel production was set at 20% in order to keep the final results conservative. A sensitivity analysis was conducted in order to test the impact of this parameter on our results (see S1 File.).

Regional consumption and in-use stock estimates

This analysis divides the world into the following regions: North America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, South and South East Asia, China, and the rest of the world (ROW) which encompasses Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Australasia. Time-series regional apparel demand data, which are not publicly available, were acquired from a market research company and were cross-checked with publicly available total production values [41]. These data spanned years 1990–2017 with projections to year 2030. We were unable to access any regional time-series apparel demand data of this sort prior to year 1990, nor were we able to make informed estimations of regional demand trends prior to year 1990. For these reasons, the percentages reported in year 1990, our nearest data point, were held constant and projected backwards to estimate each region’s apparel demand for years 1950 to 1989 (S2 Data in S2 File).

Apparel reaching its end of life

Apparel use was characterized by a discretized log-normal distribution, LTD(j), which denotes the fraction of synthetic fibers in apparel used for j years [45] (S1 Data in S2 File). The mean lifetime value of clothing is set at 5 years with a standard deviation (SD) of 1.5 [46]. The total amount of synthetic fiber waste in end-of-life apparel AW generated in year t was calculated as: In this above equation, AP is apparel production.

We then calculated the global annual in-use stock of synthetic fibers in apparel AiS(t) by adding annual apparel production and subtracting annual apparel waste from the in-use stock of the previous year (S1 Data in S2 File):

Machine vs. hand washing

To determine the amount of apparel hand washed vs. machine washed each year, we adopted a washing machine technology diffusion model to determine the percentage of households in each region that owned washing machines [47] (S3 Data in S2 File). The results produced by this model were calibrated with existing washing machine ownership data found in literature by adjusting the input parameters for each country to fit the country-level washing machine ownership data available [4854]. This diffusion relationship follows a logistic function given by:

For this equation: Diffc is the diffusion of the appliance for country c, α is the saturation level, which is equal to 1 in the case of washing machines [47], Ic is the household income given by GDP divided by the number of households in the country [55,56], Ec is the electrification rate [57], and ε is the error term which is 3.5% for washing machines [47]. The original parameter values are βinc = -3.5E-05, βelec = -8.98, and ln γ = 8.91 [47] which were adjusted in such a way that the sum of distances between the available washing machine ownership data points and the logistic function is minimized for each country.

Washing frequency

We created an annual washing frequency model for the top 30 consuming countries by comparing each country’s washing capacity to their washable stock. The washable stock represents the fraction of clothing in a given country that is active, meaning it has been worn within the past 12 months and is washed. According to published literature, 28–30% of in-use apparel is considered inactive [58]. To keep our estimates conservative, we assumed that 25% of clothing is inactive. A sensitivity analysis was conducted for the percentage of clothing that is inactive (see S1 File). We took the mean washing frequency value across all 30 countries to generate one universal washing frequency value denoted by f. While the washing frequency model focuses on machine washing only, we applied the same washing frequency value for machine washing and hand washing.

The washing frequency for country c, (fc), was calculated as:

The numerator of this equation represents the washing capacity of country c; Hc represents the number of households in country c that own washing machines, Wc is the number of washes per households per year [58], and Lc is the average load capacity [58] of country c. In the denominator, Tc is the in-use stock of country c that is washed by washing machine (S2 Data in S2 File), and 0.75 is the fraction of apparel that is considered active and able to be washed.

Microfiber shedding during washing

Microfiber shed rates from washing machines were gathered from published literature that reported microfiber shedding in units of mass lost per total mass of garment [3,6]. Determining the average microfiber mass loss of machine-washed garments indicates that microfibers shed at a rate of 0.34 kg per tonne washed [3,4,8,59]. Hand washing shed rates were unavailable due to lack of data. For this reason, we set the hand washing shed rate at 50% of the machine washing shed rate and conducted a sensitivity analysis with a hand wash shed rate that was 25% and 75% of the machine-washing shed rate (see S1 File).

The mass of microfibers shed for each country was calculated as:

In this equation, mc is the mass of synthetic microfibers shed in country c, Sc is the apparel stock of country c, 0.75 is the fraction of the apparel stock that is active, Mc is the percentage of households owning washing machines in country c, f is the washing frequency, rm is the machine wash shed rate, rh is the hand wash shed rate.

Percentage of laundry effluent treated and untreated

Microfibers shed from washing are conveyed by laundry effluent into the wastewater stream [3,6]. Data reporting the percentage of each country’s residential population connected to wastewater treatment was used as a proxy for the percentage of wastewater treated in each region [6062]. Synthetic microfibers retained in untreated wastewater were assumed to directly enter waterbodies. Wastewater data was sparsely available for 97 countries between 1990 and 2016 and most countries did not have reported data for the entire 27-year timespan. Out of the 70 countries included in this analysis, 24 had no available wastewater data. To fill the data gaps for countries with two or more data points, the data was interpolated and extrapolated based on detectable trends of wastewater infrastructure. For countries with no available data, all 97 original countries were grouped by income class based on the World Bank’s 2016 income classifications (high income, upper-middle income, lower-middle income, low income). The average annual percentage of population connected to wastewater treatment for each income class was then applied as a proxy for the 24 countries with no available data, a method adopted from Sato et al. (2013) to determine individual country’s use of wastewater [63]. The last estimated or reported value was then extrapolated backwards to extend the temporal coverage to 1950–2016 (S4 Data in S2 File).

Type of wastewater treatment and fiber retention rate

As documented in the literature, there is a lack of data on the type of treatment treated wastewater receives [6365]. Because of this, the following assumptions regarding the type of wastewater treatment (i.e. primary, secondary, and tertiary), used by each country were made: 100% secondary for high income countries, 50% secondary and 50% primary for upper-middle income, 25% secondary and 75% primary for lower-middle income, and 100% primary for low income countries. Each country’s population size was then used to produce regional weighted averages. Tertiary treatment was not included in this analysis due to insufficient data regarding its use globally. Microfiber retention rates during primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment were compiled from existing literature (S4 Table in S1 File) [2937].

Fate of sludge

Eurostat, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and country-specific data sets as well as peer-reviewed publications were combined to determine the fate of sludge, i.e. incineration, dumped at sea, landfilled, or applied on terrestrial environments. This was done for years 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, and 1989–2016 [6672]. Due to sparse data, these sources reported on 61 countries with no country reporting data for the entire 33-year timeframe described above. As such, the same extrapolation and interpolation methods described in the wastewater treatment segment were applied here. In some instances, the original data reported did not sum to 100%. In these cases, sludge application values were proportionally adjusted so that the sum of all potential sludge applications equaled 100% (S5 Data in S2 File).

Results

Synthetic fiber production and in-use stock

Our results show that the global in-use stock of synthetic fiber in apparel increased from 0.10 Mt in 1950 to 196 Mt in 2016 (S1 Data in S2 File). A total of 1,178 Mt of synthetic fibers were produced between 1950 and 2016, of which around 738 Mt were used in apparel production (S1 Data in S2 File). We estimate that in 2016, 43 Mt of synthetic fiber entered the in-use phase of apparel while 34 Mt were discarded, resulting in a net addition of 9 Mt of synthetic fiber to the in-use apparel stock in that year. The 2016 in-use stock of synthetic fiber in apparel for China alone is estimated to be 76 Mt, which accounts for about 40% of the global 2016 synthetic fiber stock (Table 1). If South and South East Asia are combined, Asia as a whole, including China, accounts for 62% of global synthetic fiber stock as apparel in 2016 (Table 1). The amount of in-use stock per capita, however, is the highest in North America where 62 kg of synthetic fiber per capita was held as apparel in 2016 (S5 Table in S1 File). The global average per capita stock increased from 8 kg per capita in 1990 to 26 kg per capita in 2016 with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5%. China’s per capita in-use stock grew almost twice as fast starting at 5 kg per capita in 1990 and arriving at 51 kg per capita in 2016 with a CAGR of 9%.

thumbnail
Table 1. 2016 Regional apparel in use stock in million metric tonnes (Mt), percentage of clothing machine washed, wastewater treatment rate, microfibers shed, and fates of microfibers, both in thousands of tonnes (kt).

The four fates of microfibers are: waterbodies, terrestrial environments, landfill, and incineration. ROW stands for rest of world.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237839.t001

Synthetic microfiber shedding from apparel washing

As the global stock of synthetic fiber has grown over the years, the global amount of synthetic microfiber shedding too has increased from around 122 tonnes in 1950 to an estimated 360 kilo tonnes (kt) in 2016, with a CAGR of 12.9%. Synthetic microfiber shedding grew faster than apparel consumption and the synthetic fiber in-use stock, due to the combined effect of consumption growth and higher access to washing machines. Adding year-over-year estimates, a cumulative 5.6 Mt of synthetic microfibers have been shed and emitted from combined hand and machine washing globally between 1950 and 2016. Roughly half of these emissions occurred during the last decade (Fig 1). Approximately 2.9 Mt of the synthetic microfiber emissions entered waterbodies, which is equivalent to over 7 billion fleece jackets by mass. In addition, an estimated 1.9 Mt of synthetic microfibers were applied to terrestrial environments, 0.6 Mt landfilled, and 0.3 Mt incinerated (Fig 1). 88% of all microfiber emissions to waterbodies were from untreated wastewater, 8% from treated wastewater, and 4% from biosolids discarded into waterbodies. 92% of synthetic microfiber emissions to terrestrial environments came from biosolids, while the other 8% were delivered by untreated wastewater used for irrigation. Both landfill and incineration serve as disposal methods for synthetic microfibers retained in biosolids. The fiber type composition of the global cumulative synthetic microfiber emissions is 4.0 Mt polyester, 0.7 Mt polyamide, 0.5 Mt polypropylene and 0.4 Mt acrylic (Fig 1).

thumbnail
Fig 1. Cumulative microfiber emissions from 1950 to 2016.

The right columns describe compartmental, compositional, and regional characteristics of the cumulative mass of microfiber emitted by 2016.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237839.g001

Regional emissions

In 2016, China generated 157 kt of synthetic microfiber emissions, and the rest of Asia 61 kt, the largest and second largest quantities of all the regions shown in Table 1. This is primarily due to the large population in Asia and the significant increase in both clothing consumption and washing machine ownership over the past decade (see Table 1). About half of the 157 kt of 2016 synthetic microfiber emissions from apparel washing in China entered waterbodies directly without wastewater treatment (Fig 2). It is estimated that about 47%, or 69 kt, of global microfiber emissions to waterbodies through untreated wastewater came from China and 28%, or 42 kt, from other Asian regions. North America and Western Europe had the third and fourth highest rates of synthetic microfiber release from apparel washing in 2016: 49 kt and 35 kt, respectively. However, most microfiber emissions in these regions entered WWTPs (Fig 2), which reduced their global contribution of microfiber emissions to waterbodies through untreated wastewater to 6% and 2%, respectively. Instead, 45% and 50% of synthetic microfibers generated in North America and West Europe, respectively, were emitted into terrestrial environments due to widespread access to WWTPs (Table 1).

thumbnail
Fig 2. The emission pathways of synthetic microfibers generated from apparel washing in 2016.

The leftmost column represents regional microfiber release. The middle columns represent the flow of synthetic microfibers through available infrastructure. The rightmost column represents the initial receiving environmental compartments.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237839.g002

Discussion & conclusion

Our results indicate that microfiber emissions to the environment are undergoing both quantitative and qualitative changes. In terms of the quantity of emissions, both the global in-use apparel stock and washing machine ownership are increasing, resulting in the release of growing quantities of synthetic microfibers into natural environments. In terms of quality, terrestrial environments are emerging as an increasingly important initial compartment of microfiber emissions, which is due to improved access to WWTPs and the application of biosolids to terrestrial environments (Fig 1). Increases in WWTP coverage in coming decades will therefore not necessarily result in an overall decrease of synthetic microfiber emissions to the environment, but rather divert synthetic microfibers from waterbodies to terrestrial environments and landfills, unless microfibers are removed from sewage sludge prior to land application. Sludge treatment technologies are seen as a potential interventions to remove microplastic particles from sludge before land application [73]. More research is required to determine the efficacy of such microplastic removal technologies. Recent literature suggests that synthetic microfibers can affect physical soil properties and microbial activity which may pose consequences for soil function and plant performance [24,74,75]. Synthetic microfiber contamination in terrestrial environments is an emerging topic and further research is required to understand the implications. Furthermore, the microfibers initially emitted to terrestrial environments have the potential to eventually enter other compartments, including waterbodies and biota, through runoff, resuspension, or convection over a long period of time [76,77]. Little is known as to the transport and fate of microfibers emitted to the environment [7679].

Due to the nature of the method and data used, multiple assumptions and simplifications were made, which generates considerable uncertainty. Sensitivity analysis was conducted for each parameter included in this study (see S1 File for details). Microfiber emission results are found to be sensitive to five key parameters: washing machine ownership (moderately sensitive), washing frequency, percentage of clothing in-use, microfibers shed rate, and microfiber retention rate in WWTPs (all highly sensitive). Alternative scenarios are tested for these five parameters (see S1 File). These alternative scenarios result in total cumulative microfiber emissions ranging from 4.3 Mt to 7.0 Mt.

Due to the limitations of this study, our results do not represent the total emissions produced from apparel throughout its lifetime. We do not take into consideration apparel that is reused, donated, or recycled. Since there are large markets for secondhand clothing, especially in lower income countries, taking this factor into account would likely increase the stock of in-use apparel and therefore increase emissions. Instead, our current model considers all clothing to be taken out of circulation once reaching its end of life. In addition, fiber and apparel production processes are likely to produce a substantial quantity of microfiber emissions, however, these processes are not accounted for in this study. We also did not account for wastewater overflows during storm events or instances in which WWTPs are over capacity. In these instances, it is likely that a larger quantity of synthetic microfibers enter waterbodies and a smaller quantity enter terrestrial environments via biosolid applications.

This study presents the first global estimate of synthetic microfibers emitted to the environment from apparel washing between 1950 and 2016. The broad scope helps to understand the magnitude and temporal trends of microfiber emissions, and to identify meaningful mitigation measures. Large-scale removal of microfibers from the environment is unlikely to be technically feasible or economically viable, so the focus needs to be on emission prevention. Given that increasing global access to WWTP does not necessarily reduce the microfiber emissions to the total environment, preventing or reducing microfiber emissions before they enter the sewer system should be a priority. This means either reducing the microfiber shed rates from apparel washing or capturing the shed microfibers during the washing process. The former might be achievable through redesign of the washing process, the fiber-containing textiles, or the fibers themselves. The latter would require some type of pollution control technology at the washing stage, such as lint filters or microfiber trapping bags or other devices. In fact, in some countries all washing machines are already equipped with lint filters. Trapped microfibers still require final disposal, such as landfill or incineration. While more research on the interactions between microfibers and the environment is urgently needed, especially in terrestrial ecosystems, this should not stop us from enacting mitigation measures now.

Acknowledgments

J.G. led the research design, data collection, model development, calculations, interpretation of results, data visualization, and writing of the manuscript; T.K. contributed to the conceptualization, research design, data collection, model development, interpretation of results, and reviewing and editing of the manuscript; I.M.S. contributed to the research design, data collection, model development, calculations, and interpretation of results; S.S. contributed to the conceptualization, research design, supervision, interpretation of results, and reviewing and editing of the manuscript; R.G. contributed to the conceptualization, funding acquisition, research design, data collection, supervision, interpretation of results, and reviewing and editing of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1. Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances. 2017 Jul 1;3(7):e1700782. pmid:28776036
  2. 2. Geyer R. Production, use, and fate of synthetic polymers, in: Plastic Waste and Recycling, Letcher T M (Ed.), Academic Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. (2019).
  3. 3. Hartline NL, Bruce NJ, Karba SN, Ruff EO, Sonar SU, Holden PA. Microfiber Masses Recovered from Conventional Machine Washing of New or Aged Garments. Environmental Science & Technology. 2016 Nov;50(21):11532–8.
  4. 4. Hernandez E, Nowack B, Mitrano DM. Polyester Textiles as a Source of Microplastics from Households: A Mechanistic Study to Understand Microfiber Release During Washing. Environmental Science & Technology. 2017 Jun 20;51(12):7036–46.
  5. 5. Napper IE, Thompson RC. Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres from domestic washing machines: Effects of fabric type and washing conditions. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2016 Nov 15;112(1):39–45.
  6. 6. Browne MA, Crump P, Niven SJ, Teuten E, Tonkin A, Galloway T, et al. Accumulation of Microplastic on Shorelines Woldwide: Sources and Sinks. Environmental Science & Technology. 2011 Nov;45(21):9175–9.
  7. 7. Yang L, Qiao F, Lei K, Li H, Kang Y, Cui S, et al. (2019). Microfiber release from different fabrics during washing. Environmental Pollution.
  8. 8. Pirc U, Vidmar M, Mozer A, Kržan A. Emissions of microplastic fibers from microfiber fleece during domestic washing. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2016 Nov 1;23(21):22206–11.
  9. 9. Moore CJ. Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: A rapidly increasing, long-term threat. Environmental Research. 2008 Oct 1;108(2):131–9. pmid:18949831
  10. 10. Cole M, Lindeque P, Halsband C, Galloway TS. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2011 Dec 1;62(12):2588–97. pmid:22001295
  11. 11. Andrady AL. Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2011 Aug 1;62(8):1596–605. pmid:21742351
  12. 12. Jemec A, Horvat P, Kunej U, Bele M, Kržan A. Uptake and effects of microplastic textile fibers on freshwater crustacean Daphnia magna. Environmental Pollution. 2016 Dec 1;219:201–9. pmid:27814536
  13. 13. Miller RZ, Watts AJR, Winslow BO, Galloway TS, Barrows APW. Mountains to the sea: River study of plastic and non-plastic microfiber pollution in the northeast USA. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2017 Nov 15;124(1):245–51. pmid:28739105
  14. 14. Dris R, Imhof H, Sanchez W, Gasperi J, Galgani F, Tassin B, et al. Beyond the ocean: contamination of freshwater ecosystems with (micro-)plastic particles. Environmental Chemistry. 2015;12(5):539.
  15. 15. Woodall Lucy C., Sanchez-Vidal Anna, Canals Miquel, Paterson Gordon L.J., Coppock Rachel, Sleight Victoria, et al. The deep sea is a major sink for microplastic debris. Royal Society Open Science. 1(4):140317. pmid:26064573
  16. 16. Thompson RC, Olsen Y, Mitchell RP, Davis A, Rowland SJ, John AWG, et al. Lost at Sea: Where Is All the Plastic? Science. 2004 May 7;304(5672):838–838. pmid:15131299
  17. 17. Zubris KAV, Richards BK. Synthetic fibers as an indicator of land application of sludge. Environmental Pollution. 2005 Nov 1;138(2):201–11. pmid:15967553
  18. 18. Habib D, Locke DC, Cannone LJ. Synthetic Fibers as Indicators of Municipal Sewage Sludge, Sludge Products, and Sewage Treatment Plant Effluents. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution. 1998 Apr 1;103(1):1–8.
  19. 19. Corradini F, Meza P, Eguiluz R, Casado F, Huerta-Lwanga E, Geissen V. Evidence of microplastic accumulation in agricultural soils from sewage sludge disposal. Science of The Total Environment. 2019 Jun 25;671:411–20. pmid:30933797
  20. 20. Obbard RW, Sadri S, Wong YQ, Khitun AA, Baker I, Thompson RC. Global warming releases microplastic legacy frozen in Arctic Sea ice. Earth’s Future. 2014;2(6):315–20.
  21. 21. Botterell ZLR, Beaumont N, Dorrington T, Steinke M, Thompson RC, Lindeque PK. Bioavailability and effects of microplastics on marine zooplankton: A review. Environmental Pollution. 2019 Feb 1;245:98–110. pmid:30415037
  22. 22. Watts AJR, Urbina MA, Corr S, Lewis C, Galloway TS. Ingestion of Plastic Microfibers by the Crab Carcinus maenas and Its Effect on Food Consumption and Energy Balance. Environ Sci Technol. 2015 Dec 15;49(24):14597–604. pmid:26529464
  23. 23. Ziajahromi S, Kumar A, Neale PA, Leusch FDL. Impact of Microplastic Beads and Fibers on Waterflea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) Survival, Growth, and Reproduction: Implications of Single and Mixture Exposures. Environ Sci Technol. 2017 Nov 21;51(22):13397–406. pmid:29059522
  24. 24. de Souza Machado AA, Lau CW, Kloas W, Bergmann J, Bachelier JB, Faltin E, et al. Microplastics Can Change Soil Properties and Affect Plant Performance. Environ Sci Technol. 2019 May 21;53(10):6044–52. pmid:31021077
  25. 25. Cox KD, Covernton GA, Davies HL, Dower JF, Juanes F, Dudas SE. Human Consumption of Microplastics. Environ Sci Technol. 2019 Jun 18;53(12):7068–74. pmid:31184127
  26. 26. Catarino AI, Macchia V, Sanderson WG, Thompson RC, Henry TB. Low levels of microplastics (MP) in wild mussels indicate that MP ingestion by humans is minimal compared to exposure via household fibres fallout during a meal. Environmental Pollution. 2018 Jun 1;237:675–84. pmid:29604577
  27. 27. Wright SL, Kelly FJ. Plastic and Human Health: A Micro Issue? Environ Sci Technol. 2017 Jun 20;51(12):6634–47. pmid:28531345
  28. 28. Browne MA, Crump P, Niven SJ, Teuten E, Tonkin A, Galloway T, et al. Accumulation of Microplastic on Shorelines Woldwide: Sources and Sinks. Environ Sci Technol. 2011 Nov 1;45(21):9175–9. pmid:21894925
  29. 29. Murphy F, Ewins C, Carbonnier F, Quinn B. Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) as a Source of Microplastics in the Aquatic Environment. Environmental Science & Technology. 2016 Jun 7;50(11):5800–8.
  30. 30. Simon M, van Alst N, Vollertsen J. Quantification of microplastic mass and removal rates at wastewater treatment plants applying Focal Plane Array (FPA)-based Fourier Transform Infrared (FT-IR) imaging. Water Research. 2018 Oct 1;142:1–9. pmid:29804032
  31. 31. Gies EA, LeNoble JL, Noël M, Etemadifar A, Bishay F, Hall ER, et al. Retention of microplastics in a major secondary wastewater treatment plant in Vancouver, Canada. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2018 Aug 1;133:553–61. pmid:30041349
  32. 32. Michielssen MR, Michielssen ER, Ni J, Duhaime MB. Fate of microplastics and other small anthropogenic litter (SAL) in wastewater treatment plants depends on unit processes employed. Environ Sci: Water Res Technol. 2016 Nov 10;2(6):1064–73.
  33. 33. Talvitie J, Mikola A, Setälä O, Heinonen M, Koistinen A. How well is microlitter purified from wastewater?–A detailed study on the stepwise removal of microlitter in a tertiary level wastewater treatment plant. Water Research. 2017 Feb 1;109:164–72. pmid:27883921
  34. 34. Carr SA, Liu J, Tesoro AG. Transport and fate of microplastic particles in wastewater treatment plants. Water Research. 2016 Mar;91:174–82. pmid:26795302
  35. 35. Lares M, Ncibi MC, Sillanpää M, Sillanpää M. Occurrence, identification and removal of microplastic particles and fibers in conventional activated sludge process and advanced MBR technology. Water Research. 2018 Apr 15;133:236–46. pmid:29407704
  36. 36. Magnusson K. Microlitter in Sewage Treatment Systems: A Nordic Perspective on Waste Water Treatment Plants as Pathways for Microscopic Anthropogenic Particles to Marine Systems. Nordic Council of Ministers; 2016. 59 p.
  37. 37. Leslie HA, Brandsma SH, van Velzen MJM, Vethaak AD. Microplastics en route: Field measurements in the Dutch river delta and Amsterdam canals, wastewater treatment plants, North Sea sediments and biota. Environment International. 2017 Apr 1;101:133–42. pmid:28143645
  38. 38. Nizzetto L, Futter M, Langaas S. Are Agricultural Soils Dumps for Microplastics of Urban Origin? Environ Sci Technol. 2016 Oct 18;50(20):10777–9. pmid:27682621
  39. 39. The Fiber Year, The Fiber Year 2017: World Survey on Textiles & Nonwovens (The Fiber Year GmbH, 2017).
  40. 40. J. Mills, “Polyester & Cotton: Unequal Competitors,” Tecnon OrbiChem presentation at Association Française Cotonnière (AFCOT), Deauville, France, 6 October 2011.
  41. 41. PCI Wood Mackenzie, “Fibers Global Supply Demand Report 2017” (PCI Research, GmbH, 2017).
  42. 42. Rissanen T. (2007). TYPES OF FASHION DESIGN AND PATTERNMAKING PRACTICE. Nordes.
  43. 43. Abernathy FH, Dunlop JT, Hammond JH, Weil D. A Stitch in Time. Lean Retailing and the Transformation of Manufacturing—Lessons from the Apparel and Textile Industries. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999.
  44. 44. Cooklin G. Garment Technology for Fashion Designers. Wiley-Blackwell (1855); 1997.
  45. 45. Davis J, Geyer R, Ley J, He J, Clift R, Kwan A, et al. Time-dependent material flow analysis of iron and steel in the UK: Part 2. Scrap generation and recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2007 Jul 1;51(1):118–40.
  46. 46. Drycleaning Institute of Australia, International Fair Claims Guide for Consumer Textiles Products (Drycleaning Institute of Australia, 2015).
  47. 47. McNeil MA, Letschert VE. Modeling diffusion of electrical appliances in the residential sector. Energy and Buildings. 2010 Jun;42(6):783–90.
  48. 48. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Environmental Issues: Energy Use and Conservation. Australian Bureau of Statistics.
  49. 49. Cabeza LF, Ürge-Vorsatz D, Ürge D, Palacios A, Barreneche C. Household appliances penetration and ownership trends in residential buildings—ScienceDirect. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2018 Dec;98:1–8.
  50. 50. National Bureau of Statistics China. (2013). China Statistical Yearbook 2013. China Statistical Yearbook.
  51. 51. Pakula C, Stamminger R. Electricity and water consumption for laundry washing by washing machine worldwide. Energy Efficiency. 2010 Nov 1;3(4):365–82.
  52. 52. Rao N, Ummel K. White goods for white people? Drivers of electric appliance growth in emerging economies. Energy Research & Social Science. 2017;27:106–16.
  53. 53. Siebens J. Extended Measures of Well-Being: Living Conditions in the United States: 2011. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2013/demo/p70-136.html; 2013 Sep p. 13. Report No.: P70-136.
  54. 54. Yuan Z, Zhang Y, Liu X. Life cycle assessment of horizontal-axis washing machines in China. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2016 Jan 1;21(1):15–28.
  55. 55. The World Bank. GDP per capita, PPP (current international $). The World Bank.
  56. 56. UN Habitat. (2002). Household Projections Project. UN Habitat.
  57. 57. The World Bank. Access to electricity (% of population). The World Bank.
  58. 58. Laitala K, Klepp I, Henry BK. (2018). Use phase of apparel: A literature review for Life Cycle Assessment with focus on wool. CONSUMPTION RESEARCH NORWAY—SIFO.
  59. 59. De Falco F, Gullo MP, Gentile G, Di Pace E, Cocca M, Gelabert L, et al. Evaluation of microplastic release caused by textile washing processes of synthetic fabrics. Environmental Pollution. 2018 May 1;236:916–25. pmid:29107418
  60. 60. United Nations Statistics Division—Environment Statistics. [cited 2019 May 29]. Available from: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/time%20series.htm
  61. 61. OECD, (2020). Wastewater treatment (% population connected). OECD.Stat.
  62. 62. Lautze J, Stander E, Drechsel P, da Silva AK, Keraita B. (2014). Global experiences in water reuse. International Water Management Institute (IWMI). CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE).
  63. 63. Sato T, Qadir M, Yamamoto S, Endo T, Zahoor A. Global, regional, and country level need for data on wastewater generation, treatment, and use. Agricultural Water Management. 2013 Dec;130:1–13.
  64. 64. Malik OA, Hsu A, Johnson LA, de Sherbinin A. A global indicator of wastewater treatment to inform the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Environmental Science & Policy. 2015 Apr 1;48:172–85.
  65. 65. Mateo-Sagasta J, Raschid-Sally L, Thebo A. Global Wastewater and Sludge Production, Treatment and Use. Wastewater: Economic Asset in an Urbanizing World. 2015.
  66. 66. Andreoli C. V., Garbossa L. H. P., Lupatini G. & Pegorini E. S. Wastewater sludge management: A Brazilian approach. in: LeBlanc R. J., Laughton P. J. & Tyagi R. (eds.), Global atlas of excreta, wastewater sludge, and biosolids management: moving forward the sustainable and welcome uses of a global resource. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), p.117–130.
  67. 67. LeBlanc RJ, Matthews P, Richard RP, United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Global atlas of excreta, wastewater sludge, and biosolids management: moving forward the sustainable and welcome uses of a global resource. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT).
  68. 68. Yang G, Zhang G, Wang H. Current state of sludge production, management, treatment and disposal in China. Water Research. 2015 Jul 1;78:60–73. pmid:25912250
  69. 69. WaterAid. An Assessment of Faecal Sludge Management Policies and Programmes at the National and Select States Levels. WaterAid.
  70. 70. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. Sewerage: Formation of resource and energy circulation. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.
  71. 71. Eurostat. Sewage sludge production and disposal from urban wastewater (in dry substance (d.s)). Eurostat.
  72. 72. OECD. Sewage sludge production and disposal (in dry substance). OECD.Stat.
  73. 73. Mahon AM, O’Connell B, Healy MG, O’Connor I, Officer R, Nash R, et al. Microplastics in Sewage Sludge: Effects of Treatment. Environ Sci Technol. 2017 Jan 17;51(2):810–8. pmid:27936648
  74. 74. Zhang GS, Zhang FX, Li XT. Effects of polyester microfibers on soil physical properties: Perception from a field and a pot experiment. Science of The Total Environment. 2019 Jun 20;670:1–7. pmid:30893616
  75. 75. de Souza Machado AA, Lau CW, Till J, Kloas W, Lehmann A, Becker R, et al. Impacts of Microplastics on the Soil Biophysical Environment. Environmental Science & Technology. 2018 Sep 4;52(17):9656–65.
  76. 76. Rezaei M, Riksen MJPM, Sirjani E, Sameni A, Geissen V. Wind erosion as a driver for transport of light density microplastics. Science of The Total Environment. 2019 Jun;669:273–81. pmid:30878934
  77. 77. Nizzetto L, Bussi G, Futter MN, Butterfield D, Whitehead PG. A theoretical assessment of microplastic transport in river catchments and their retention by soils and river sediments. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts. 2016;18(8):1050–9.
  78. 78. Dris R, Gasperi J, Saad M, Mirande C, Tassin B. Synthetic fibers in atmospheric fallout: A source of microplastics in the environment? Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2016 Mar 15;104(1):290–3.
  79. 79. Allen S, Allen D, Phoenix V, Le Roux G, Durántez Jiménez P, Simonneau anaëlle, et al. Atmospheric transport and deposition of microplastics in a remote mountain catchment. Vol. 12. 2019.