Multi-method fiber and additive characterization of commercial wet wipes purchased in the United Kingdom.
Source details
Tommaso Nacci, Francesca De Falco, Richard C. Thompson, Federico Vitale, Ilaria Degano, Francesca Modugno. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis. 2025.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaap.2025.107200
Findings
Conventional wipes contained polypropylene and/or polyethylene terephthalate together with cellulose. The investigated flushable and biodegradable groups were cellulose-based. Composition and organic additive signals were measured, not a release rate or infant dose.
Methods and scope
SEM characterized fiber morphology, ATR-FTIR assessed bulk composition, and evolved-gas MS plus multi-shot pyrolysis GC-MS separated additive and fiber signatures. Air-dried, previously unused wipe material was analyzed. No particle-release experiment or release-procedure blank series was reported because the endpoint was material composition.
What this source can support
Strong direct evidence for why wipe fibers and chemical additives require separate endpoints and why cellulose should be distinguished from synthetic plastics.
A small selected UK product set, not all baby wipes. No transfer-to-skin or shedding count. Drying can lose volatile additives; pyrolysis has limits for polar/high-molecular-weight additives. Failure to identify an additive does not establish absence.
Related evidence
Source provenance
Primary PDF SHA-256: 44cb9cefe1643f6d31795d5d7db50266d8853cea62cb6c4d32a0488e2f586ebc
The source record identifies the scope and limits of the primary-document review. Follow the DOI or official source link for the original document; this site does not redistribute the PDF.