If we are worried about microplastics, why isnt there more outrage over "microfiber" ?

silentknyght@lemmy.world to No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world – 68 points –

It seems like microfiber materials should be a major contributor to micro plastics, especially with all the laundering of the microfiber cloths and clothes.

13

You are viewing a single comment
View all comments

Others have pointed out that microfiber would already be considered microplastic, but maybe you’re aware of that and are thinking that microplastics are plastics that are manufactured to be microscopic (like fiberglass is manufactured as microscopic glass).

But all (petroleum-based) plastics break down into microplastics, whatever scale they’re originally manufactured at. Microfiber is no different from other synthetic cloth in that respect—while it should be avoided like other synthetics, there’s no reason to single it out.

I'm thinking of it like the micro plastics that were purposely added to bath wash and soap, and now are banned for use in that purpose. I'm not entirely sure I understand the logic behind why those are (justifiably) banned, but microfiber cloths are not.

My stupid question is because I haven't seen any other news articles specifically talking about microfiber and its contribution to micro plastics.

There is a distinction between “primary” microplastics like you’re describing, and “secondary” microplastics caused by the breakdown of larger items.

From Wikipedia:

Two classifications of microplastics are currently recognized. Primary microplastics include any plastic fragments or particles that are already 5.0 mm in size or less before entering the environment. These include microfibers from clothing, microbeads, and plastic pellets (also known as nurdles). Secondary microplastics arise from the degradation (breakdown) of larger plastic products through natural weathering processes after entering the environment.