Microplastics released from textiles

Which textiles and processes were tested

The reviewed experiments include household-machine washing of commercial garments and a controlled polyester-fleece study that compared washing with abrasion followed by washing. They cover specific materials and laboratory conditions rather than the full range of apparel and outdoor gear. A result from fleece should not be assigned to a coated shell, tent, shoe or other untested product.¹²

Textile fibers also require a material distinction. Synthetic polymer fibers can be microplastics, while cotton, modal and other cellulosic fibers should not automatically be counted as plastic. One household-laundry paper included a mixed garment that shed substantial cellulose. This page keeps its pure-polyester garment results separate from that mixed-fiber total, instead of calling every released fiber microplastic.¹

What the experiments found

The household washing study measured 125.0 ± 32.1 mg fibers/kg washed fabric from a tested knitted garment and 48.6 ± 2.2 mg fibers/kg washed fabric from a tested woven garment in the first wash. The quantities are fiber mass normalized to washed fabric mass. The garments differed in construction and yarn properties, so the comparison does not isolate the effect of a single design variable or establish a ranking for all knitted and woven textiles.¹

Scroll horizontally for methods and limits.

The fleece study distinguished ordinary cylindrical microfibers from narrower tape-like fibrils. Fibrils were found after abrasion, while conventional fibers were counted in both conditions. It also detected PET nanoparticles using chemical analysis of selected particles. This combination shows that focusing only on visible fibers can omit other fractions, but it does not make every nanoparticle counted by a physical instrument a separately confirmed polymer particle.²

Mass, counts and chemical identity

The household study collected the complete wastewater volume through staged filters and weighed the recovered fibers. It also published estimated fiber numbers calculated from mass, mean dimensions, density and an assumed cylindrical shape. Those estimates are not direct counts and are not reproduced as independently measured particle totals here. A smaller filter was used on an aliquot to demonstrate a fine fraction; the authors did not extrapolate that aliquot to the entire wastewater volume.¹

In the fleece experiment, SEM image analysis counted microfibers and fibrils. Nanoparticle tracking analysis estimated number and size from physical particle motion. Transmission electron microscopy examined morphology, while scanning transmission X-ray microscopy and absorption spectra supported PET identity in selected nanoparticles. The reported nanoparticle abundance used 100-1000 nm nanoparticle counting window. Smaller observed objects were excluded from that quantitative window rather than assumed to have a confirmed plastic identity.²

Both studies assessed background contamination. The household-machine work used cleaning cycles and blank tests without detected fibers. The controlled fleece work processed method blanks through the same washing, filtration and centrifugation steps and subtracted background. The latter included a substantial nanoparticle background, which is particularly relevant when interpreting very large number concentrations. Chemical confirmation of selected particles and blank subtraction strengthen interpretation but do not remove every analytical assumption.¹²

What the results mean for product evidence

These experiments establish release under their stated conditions. They do not show the total emitted over a garment's lifetime or the portion reaching a person. Laundering intensity, textile preparation, abrasion and sample collection differ between the papers, so the quantities cannot be pooled into a universal shedding factor. Fiber mass and nanoparticle counts also cannot be compared as if they were the same measurement.¹²

The studies support further work on fabric structure and testing methods, while leaving important product-specific gaps. Neither a polymer label nor a recycled-content label alone determines release. The household study explicitly noted that construction differences prevented isolating recycled content as the explanation for its results. No brand comparison, wearer health claim or untested outdoor-gear estimate follows from these experiments.¹²

Regulatory status

The supplied EU restriction addresses defined synthetic polymer microparticles as substances or intentionally present in mixtures, with exclusions, derogations and transition provisions. A shedding measurement from an article does not by itself establish whether that restriction applies or has been violated.³ The drinking-water methods are useful analytical comparisons, but they are not validated product-specific release tests for this category.⁴⁵ No universal compliant particle count is inferred from them. Read the regulatory source guide.

References

1. The contribution of washing processes of synthetic clothes to microplastic pollutionFrancesca De Falco, Emilia Di Pace, Mariacristina Cocca, Maurizio Avella · Scientific Reports · 2019 · DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-43023-xResearch article
2. Characterization of Nanoplastics, Fibrils, and Microplastics Released during Washing and Abrasion of Polyester TextilesTong Yang, Jialuo Luo, Bernd Nowack · Environmental Science & Technology · 2021 · DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c04826Research article
3. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2055: restriction on synthetic polymer microparticlesEuropean Commission · Official document · 2023 · Official sourceLegal instrument
4. SWB-MP1-rev1: Infrared spectroscopy of microplastic particles in drinking waterCalifornia State Water Resources Control Board and SCCWRP · Official document · 2022 · Official sourceOfficial method
5. SWB-MP2-rev1: Raman spectroscopy of microplastic particles in drinking waterCalifornia State Water Resources Control Board and SCCWRP · Official document · 2022 · Official sourceOfficial method