Are We Underestimating Anthropogenic Microfiber Pollution? A Critical Review of Occurrence, Methods, and Reporting

Abstract

Anthropogenic microfibers, a ubiquitous environmental contaminant, can be categorized as synthetic, semi-synthetic or natural according to material of origin and production process. Although natural fibers, such as cotton and wool, originated from natural sources, they often contain chemical additives, including colorants (e.g., dyes, pigments) and finishes (e.g., flame retardants, anti-microbial agents, UV-stabilizers).These additives are applied to textiles during production to give textiles desired properties This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. Accepted Articlelike enhanced durability. Anthropogenically-modified 'natural' and semi-synthetic fibers are sufficiently persistent to undergo long-range transport and accumulate in the environment, where they are ingested by biota. Although most research and communication on microfibers has focused on the sources, pathways and effects of synthetic fibers in the environment, natural and semi-synthetic fibers warrant further investigation because of their abundance. Due to the challenges in enumerating and identifying natural and semi-synthetic fibers in environmental samples and the focus on microplastic or synthetic fibers, reports of anthropogenic microfibers in the environment may be underestimated. In this critical review, we (1) report that natural and semisynthetic microfibers are abundant, (2) highlight that some environmental compartments are relatively understudied in the microfiber literature, and (3) report which methods are suitable to enumerate and characterize the full suite of anthropogenic microfibers. We then use these findings to (4) recommend best practices to assess the abundance of anthropogenic microfibers in the environment, including natural and semi-synthetic fibers. By focusing exclusively on synthetic fibers in the environment, we are neglecting a major component of anthropogenic microfiber pollution.

Anthropogenic microfibres flux in an Antarctic coastal ecosystem: The tip of an iceberg?

“…Nevertheless, wool and cellulosic (e.g. cotton and rayon) are the most frequent natural and semisynthetic microfibres dominating anthropogenic particles (Athey and Erdle 2021), as was the case in the present study. Current scientific understanding recognises that AMFs imprint on the environment is of major concern worldwide, pointing to human activities as the main factor increasing AMFs pollution.…”

Relevant and Realistic Assessments of Micro‐ and Nanoplastics in the Environment

“…Microfibers are an important environmental contaminant. In the meta-analysis of Athey and Erdle (2022), understudied compartments and geographic regions of microfibers were identified. Source compartments include indoor environments and dust, while key pathways to the environment are storm water, sewage sludge, and biosolids.…”

“…Source compartments include indoor environments and dust, while key pathways to the environment are storm water, sewage sludge, and biosolids. Athey and Erdle (2022) also point out the need to include both natural and semisynthetic microfibers in future studies, to better understand their sources, pathways, and effects.…”

Monitoring of microplastic pollution in the Arctic: recent developments in polymer identification, quality assurance and control, and data reporting

“…ISO (ISO, 2020) defined large microplastic with 1-5 mm and microplastic with 1 µm-1 mm, and Frias and Nash, 2019) proposed 1 µm to 5 mm for the term microplastics. Further, the introduction of the term "anthropogenic particles" was introduced when chemical identity cannot be 5 confirmed (Athey et al, 2020, Athey and Erdle, 2021, Adams et al, 2021. The European Union (EU) has, in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), defined microlitter as small litter fragments below 5 mm covering both plastic and other man-made solids (EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2017).…”