BRREMEN – A new study by Veronica Bates Kassatly and Terry Townsend provides a critical examination of the challenges posed by microfibres in environmental impact assessments. Funded and published by Cotton Incorporated and the Bremen Cotton Exchange, the report calls for greater precision and transparency in addressing the pollution caused by synthetic microfibres, which pose risks to both human health and the environment.
The study is titled: ‘The Treatment of Microfibres in Life Cycle Analysis and Product Environmental Footprint Applications’.
Microfibres, tiny textile fragments, are a subset of microplastics and are increasingly recognised as pervasive environmental pollutants. The study documents their global ubiquity, with evidence showing microplastics in ecosystems as diverse as the Mariana Trench and the Antarctic ice sheet. Alarmingly, recent research has also detected microplastics in human organs, including bone marrow and brain tissue. “Microplastics affect everyone and everything, everywhere,” the authors state.
Synthetic fibres, primarily polyester, account for 65 per cent of global textile production as of 2023. The report states that polyester fibres alone involve over 2,500 chemicals in their production and lifecycle, with only a small fraction confirmed as safe. The long-term environmental and health risks posed by these substances remain poorly understood. As such the report calls for more robust research and stricter evaluation mechanisms.
The report critically assesses frameworks like the French and EU Product Environmental Footprints (PEFs), which aim to evaluate the environmental impacts of textiles. According to the authors, these frameworks fail to adequately distinguish between synthetic and natural fibres, categorising all microfibre emissions as equivalent, despite their vastly different environmental behaviours.
“The decision to equate the impacts of natural and synthetic fibres is inconsistent with prevailing science,” the authors write, pointing out that natural fibres such as untreated cotton biodegrade readily, often as quickly as cellulose-based products like tissue paper.
By contrast, synthetic fibres persist in the environment for decades, slowly breaking down into smaller particles. The report identifies mismanaged apparel waste as the most significant source of future microfibre pollution. “The primary source of microfibre pollution in the coming years will not be fibres shed during washing or wearing but the particles and fibres released from accumulating textile waste,” the authors warn.
The study raises concerns about the potential influence of commercial interests in shaping PEF standards. It highlights the role of organisations tied to synthetic fibre production in the development of these methodologies, warning that such involvement undermines the scientific basis of environmental legislation.
The report calls for more inclusive consultations with stakeholders from the Global South, who bear disproportionate environmental costs from textile production. “The treatment of microfibres must not be determined solely by a grouping of major brands and LCA providers,” the authors state.
The authors propose a series of recommendations to improve the accuracy and fairness of LCAs and PEFs. Central to these is the need to classify synthetic microfibres as a distinct hazard category, reflecting their unique environmental and health impacts. The report also stresses the importance of including macroplastic management in policies aimed at reducing microfibre pollution, as synthetic textiles are a significant source of macroplastic waste.
“Without addressing the broader issues of plastic production, waste, and leakage, efforts to manage microfibre pollution will be inadequate,” the report notes. Additionally, the authors advocate for greater transparency in assessing the impact of fibre treatments, particularly those applied to synthetic textiles.