The Treatment of Microfibers in Life Cycle Analysis and Product Environmental Footprint Applications
Funded and published by Cotton Incorporated and the Bremen Cotton Exchange, our latest report is available on the BBB website.
Executive Summary
Plastic microfibres are microscopic particles generated by the physical and chemical degradation of consumer and industrial plastic products including apparel. They are commonly categorized as microplastics - particles less than 5 millimeters (about 0.2 in or 5,000 microns) across – and nanoplastics - particles between 1-1,000 nanometers (1 micron = 1,000 nanometers) across. Plastic microfibres are found in every ecosystem on Earth even in the remotest locations - from the Mariana Trench to Everest, and from Antarctica to Tibet. Microplastics affect everyone and everything, everywhere.
Worldwide, anxiety about this ubiquity and its potential impacts on human and environmental health is increasing. Chemicals associated with these synthetic textile polymers are a key aspect of this concern. Polyester (PET) polymers are the primary polymers used in synthetic apparel. Some 2,566 chemicals are either marketed for use in PET, are present in PET, or are released from PET. Only 31 of these are known to be not hazardous, 31%, are known to be hazardous, but the vast majority are without hazard data. In other words, they may be chemicals of concern, or they may not be. We just don’t know.
The impact of microfibers remains uncertain but evidence of serious harm is mounting A study published in May 2024, noted a higher risk of a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause in patients where micro and nanoplastics were detected, than in those in whom these particles were not detected. In a study published in September 2024, micro and nanoplastics were identified in the human bone marrow of leukemia patients. Another 2024 study found that samples from livers, kidneys, and brains of autopsied bodies exhibited significant increases in micro and nanoplastics between 2016 and 2024. Brain samples from those who had dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, contained up to 10 times more plastic by weight than healthy samples.
The petrochemical industry is approximately 100 years old. Polyester has been produced in volume for less than 70 years. But serious environmental and human health implications associated with the buildup of microplastics and nanoplastics are already being identified. In contrast, natural fibers have been produced, used, and worn for thousands of years, and we do not see a buildup of these fibers in the environment or our bodies or their impact on human health.
In short, plastic microfibers are a completely different hazard category than other microfibers and must be treated as such in Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) and Product Environmental Footprints (PEFs). Recognizing this fundamental difference, the European Commission’s March 2024 resolution on the Green Claims Directive, specified that the PEF for Apparel and Footwear must incorporate a microplastic assessment. The PEF Technical Secretariat, however, has unilaterally decided to ‘transition’ the term “microplastics” to “fiber fragments”, and to replace ‘microplastic release’ with the release of all microfiber types, including natural fibers. Moreover, the PEFCR will be based on the premise that there is no difference between plastic and any other type of microfiber, other than durability and rates of shedding. The French PEF has adopted a similar approach. That approach is inconsistent, both with the EU Commission’s intent and with prevailing science.
The sources tapped by both the French and EU PEFs to evaluate microfiber impact are not scientific organizations but commercial entities. The potential conflict of interest stemming from the involvement of stakeholders deeply tied to the production of plastic apparel, throughout the PEF process, is pertinent and significant. Such conflicts could undermine the scientific foundations of environmental legislation and impede the effective management of long-term environmental challenges. Microfibers affect everyone everywhere. Consultation on their treatment must be global and broad-based.
In 2019 plastic waste from all sources amounted to 353.3 million tonnes of which 11% was clothing and other textile waste (by 2023 waste had risen to 398.9 million tonnes). Waste that is not handled correctly leaks into the natural environment. In 2019, plastic waste leakage from littering, intentional or illegal dumping, accidental release, and poorly managed landfills totaled 60 million tonnes. Of this, approximately 8.3 million tonnes came from apparel - and only ≈1.3 million tonnes of that was in the form of microfibers. The other 7 million tonnes were leaked as macroplastics - primarily as waste synthetic clothing. In other words, washing apparel as a source of fiber release - once believed to be the primary concern - is now known to be largely irrelevant. Not only are fibers released constantly in wear, but the most important source of micro and nano plastics going forward will not be apparel in production and use. It will be particles and fibers released from the accumulation of mismanaged apparel waste that has leaked into the natural environment. If macro plastic production, waste, and leakage are not addressed as a matter of urgency, we will inevitably be left with a global microplastic problem well beyond the reach of LCAs and PEFs. Current EU and French PEF and associated LCA proposals, to restrict the inventory and impact calculations to fiber fragment shedding through the domestic laundering process and their impact on the marine environment, are completely inadequate.
Toxic fiber treatments are a concern However, both the French and the EU PEF are intended for use by brands making claims for specific items of apparel. Whether a finishing treatment has or has not been applied will be known. To be remotely valid any PEF should reflect this with a Finishing option. The EU PEF offers one. The French PEF does not. If a microfiber complement is to be added to natural fibers because treatments can be harmful. Then, this should automatically be related to whether a finishing option was or was not selected. It should not be slapped onto every natural fiber, willy-nilly in a haphazard and unscientific manner, as both the EU and French PEF currently propose.
Fashion value chain LCAs/PEFs must make it clear that plastic fibers contain hazardous chemicals, and such fibers may create exposure to the different chemicals used throughout the item’s life cycle. Just as packaging for tobacco products must include a health warning, we suggest that the following warning might be appropriate on point-of-sale packaging for all products containing synthetic fibers: