Shedding of synthetic microfibers from textiles · Shedding of fibers is a relatively new concept in textile development, which is why the main purpose of the project is to raise

Linn Åström

Uppsats för avläggande av masterexamen i naturvetenskap30 hp

Institutionen för biologi och miljövetenskapGöteborgs universitet

Januari 2016

Shedding of synthetic microfibers fromtextiles

Examination course in Environmental science, 2015

LINN ÅSTRÖM 1

Abstract Large amounts of plastic and other debris end up in in the oceans from various sources. The debris cause problems for organisms living in and around the oceans. When mistaken for food, organisms eat the debris causing damage to their digestive tract and leading to malnutrition. Chemicals added to the plastic during production and pollutants adhered from the surrounding seawater can after feeding on the plastics be toxic to organisms. Both plastics and chemicals located on the resins can pass from smaller organisms up through the trophic levels.

Microplastics (<5mm) include fragments of plastics, plastics in cosmetics and synthetic textile fibers. The majority of microplastics from textiles enter the oceans through washing machines via the wastewater treatment plants.

The dominating particles among the plastics found in oceans are particles smaller than 1 cm in diameter and polyester and acrylic are two of the most common plastics found in seawater and on shores.

Synthetic fibers account for 60 % of the total global fiber production and among the synthetic fibers, polyester itself accounts for 91 % and the demand for the fibers is increasing.

In this study, the amount of microfiber shedding from synthetic textile fabrics were tested for three different materials; acrylic, polyamide and polyester. All synthetic textile fabrics in the study shed, but fabrics shedding the greatest amount of fibers are fleece and microfleece, shedding up to 7360 fibers per m2 in one wash. Tests showed a higher fiber loss when washing fabrics with detergent rather than without detergent. A greater fiber loss was found among the fabrics that had been repolished to simulate used clothes. In order to accomplish this study, a new method had to be developed. The method include the use of a Gyrowasher, more commonly used for coloring tests. This enabled the washing of fabrics with detergent without clogging of the filter when filtering the effluent. It is not a standardized method and few similar studies are made, why more studies are needed to develop the method and on the subject.


LINN ÅSTRÖM 2

Sammanfattning Stora mängder plast och annat skräp hamnar i våra hav från olika källor. Skräpet orsakar problem för organismer som lever både i och runt haven. Skräpet misstas ofta för föda och kan vid intag orsaka skador på sin mag-tarmkanal och leda till undernäring. Plasterna innehåller olika tillsatser och attraherar olika föroreningar från det omgivande havsvattnet vilka efter intag kan vara giftiga för organismer. Både plaster och föroreningar kan passera från mindre organismer upp genom trofinivåerna. Mikroplaster (< 5 mm) innefattar bland annat fragment av plast, plast i skrubbkrämer och syntetiska textilfibrer. Majoriteten av mikroplasterna från textilier hamnar i haven genom våra tvättmaskiner och sedan genom avloppsvattenreningsverken. De dominerande plastpartklarna som återfinns i haven är partiklar mindre än 1 cm i diameter varav polyester och akryl är två av de mest funna plastsorterna i havsvatten och på stränderna. Syntetfibrer står för 60 % av den totala globala fiberproduktionen varav polyester själv står för 91 % av denna produktion och efterfrågan på fibrerna ökar. I denna studie har mängden mikrofiberpartiklar som lossnar från syntetiska textilier testas för tre olika material; akryl, polyamid och polyester. Alla syntetiska textilier släpper mikrofibrer, men de tyger som släpper den största mängden fibrer är fleece och mikrofleece med upp till 7360 fibrer per m2 vid en tvätt. Testerna visade på en högre fiberförlust när de tvättades med tvättmedel jämfört med tvätt utan tvättmedel. Även de tyger som hade smärglats för att simulera slitna kläder visade sig släppa en större mängd fibrer jämfört med osmärglade tyger.

För att kunna utföra denna studie behövde en ny metod utvecklas vilken inkluderar en Gyrowasher, som normalt används för färghärdighetstester. Gyrowashern möjliggjorde för tvätt med tvättmedel utan att filtren sattes igen vid senare filtrering. Metoden som används är inte standardiserad och det finns få liknande studier så det behövs ytterligare studier både inom ämnet och för att utveckla metoden.


LINN ÅSTRÖM 3

Aim and purpose Textile fibers account for a large part of the debris found on various sites along the Swedish west coast (Norén et al, 2014). Textile fibers are shed from clothes and other textiles and due to their lack of decomposition in nature, the amount of textile fibers will become greater over time as they accumulate. Nowadays, filters are not commonly used in washing machines or sewage treatment plants, allowing synthetic fibers an easy entrance to the oceans. Garments made of synthetic fibers such as polyester (PET) are sometimes marketed as environmentally friendly garments because they are recycled. However, the fact that these garments shed a lot of potentially damaging fibers when washed is ignored.

Shedding of fibers is a relatively new concept in textile development, which is why the main purpose of the project is to raise awareness among people about the problems with synthetic microfiber loss. The purpose is also to urge the development of solutions such as construction of materials with less shedding and filters in washing machines and wastewater treatment plants, and to promote less use of synthetic textile fibers until better solutions are found.

The aim of the project is to see if there is any difference between various fabrics when washed and try to find out the reasons behind differences in fiber loss. This is done, so in the future a standard for textile fiber loss (shedding) can be described and clothes could be labelled depending on their fiber loss. In addition, the effects of washing clothes with or without detergent will be tested to urge on future research for better ways of washing clothes to prevent fiber loss.

In order to accomplish the project, a method for shedding will be developed which later could be used in the development of a standardized method and future tests.

The project is meant to be a starting point for a database where fabrics of different materials and constructions could be listed to help the textile industry in making better choices in production and to raise awareness among consumers.

Hypothesis There is not a difference between fabrics in the amount of fibers shed when washed

Used/ damaged clothes do not shed more fibers than new clothes

Detergent do not have an impact on the amount of fibers shed when washed

Acknowledgements Thank you to my supervisor, Bethanie Carney Almroth, Gothenburg University, for all help during this project. Thank you Ann Åström for being my biggest source of inspiration and help. Thank you Mats Johansson and Nils-Krister Persson at the Swedish School of Textiles for letting me use the laboratory and for helping me with this project. Thank you to Ulrika Marklund for being a great inspiration and for being one of the reasons this project was made. Thank you Tenson for providing with fleece materials. Finally, a big thank you to Sofia Roslund and Hanna Peterson lots of help with information and the making of fabrics.


LINN ÅSTRÖM 4

Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

Sammanfattning ............................................................................................................................................ 2

Aim and purpose ........................................................................................................................................... 3

Hypothesis ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Plastics ................................................................................................................................................. 6

1.2 Density ............................................................................................................................................. 6

1.3 Microplastics ................................................................................................................................... 6

1.4 Sources to microplastics in the marine environment ......................................................................... 7

1.5 Plastic findings ..................................................................................................................................... 8

1.6 Physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms ..................................................................... 9

1.7 Toxicity .............................................................................................................................................. 10

2. Plastics used in textiles ............................................................................................................................ 11

2.1 Synthetic fibers .................................................................................................................................. 11

2.1.2 Acrylic ......................................................................................................................................... 12

2.1.3 Polyamide ................................................................................................................................... 12

2.1.4 Polyester ..................................................................................................................................... 13

2.3 Detergents ..................................................................................................................................... 13

2.3.1 Surfactants in liquid Via Color .................................................................................................... 14

3. Method .................................................................................................................................................... 15

3.1. Preparing fabrics............................................................................................................................... 15

3.1.1 The making of fabrics ................................................................................................................. 15

3.1.2 Dyeing ......................................................................................................................................... 15

3.1.3 Repolising ................................................................................................................................... 15

3.1.4 Cutting ........................................................................................................................................ 16

3.3 Washing ............................................................................................................................................. 16

3.3.1 Prewash ...................................................................................................................................... 16

3.3.2 Main wash .................................................................................................................................. 16

3.4 Filtering .............................................................................................................................................. 17

3.5 Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 17

3.6 Statistics............................................................................................................................................. 17


LINN ÅSTRÖM 5

4. Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 18

4.1 All fabrics ........................................................................................................................................... 19

4.2 Repolishing ........................................................................................................................................ 20

4.3 Amount and distribution of fibers with different sizes between fabrics .......................................... 21

4.4 Fleece and microfleece ...................................................................................................................... 22

Total mean, all fleece fabrics ............................................................................................................... 22

4.5 Use of detergent ................................................................................................................................ 23

5. Discussion ................................................................................................................................................ 24

5.1 The size of the problem ................................................................................................................. 24

5.2 Filters in washing machines and sewage treatment plants – possible solutions .......................... 24

5.3 Raising awareness – textile shedding standard............................................................................. 25

5.4 Differences among the tested fabrics ........................................................................................... 25

5.5 Method and Errors ........................................................................................................................ 25

6. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................. 26

7. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 26

8. Fibers ....................................................................................................................................................... 27

Polyester A-D ....................................................................................................................................... 27

Terrycloth ............................................................................................................................................ 27

Acrylic .................................................................................................................................................. 27

Polyamide ............................................................................................................................................ 28

Microfleece Tenson ............................................................................................................................. 28

Microfleece Polartech ......................................................................................................................... 28

Fleece Tenson ...................................................................................................................................... 28

9. References ............................................................................................................................................... 29

APPENDIX 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 32


LINN ÅSTRÖM 6

1. Introduction

1.1 Plastics Mass production of plastics began in the 1940s. Plastics derive from the polymerization of monomers, which are extracted from oil or gas. They are synthetic organic polymers, manufactured in different ways and optimized for different purposes. The many various uses of plastic have made it an outstanding material in production of all kinds. Plastic production has increased rapidly since the production began in the 1940s and 2009 the amount of produced plastic was 230 million tons (Cole et al, 2011). Though plastic is of use in many ways, the environmental harm has become a great concern. The durability of plastics makes it an attractive material to use, but the lack of decomposing in nature makes it problematic. The majority of plastics end up on landfills and it may take a long time to breakdown and decompose. The amount of plastics produced estimated to end up in the marine environment is around 10 % (Cole et al, 2011).

The longevity of plastics can range from hundreds to thousands of years in nature. The amount of time it takes for plastic to decompose is debated and estimations vary dependent upon whether the time is calculated on whole items or fragments from items (Barnes et al, 2009).

1.2 Density Different types of plastic have different kinds of density, which make them available on a wide range in the water column and therefor to many organisms. Planktivores, filter feeders and suspension feeders living in the upper water column are more likely to encounter low-density plastics. Other organisms such as benthic suspension feeders, deposit feeders and detritivores are more likely to encounter high-density plastics like PVC, which will be available in the benthic area as they sink (Wright et al, 2013). Synthetic polymers sometimes have a higher density compared to seawater (1020- 1029 kg/ m3) which supports the theory on synthetic fibers ending up in the benthic area. Below, the different densities among the fabrics tested in the study are listed (Enders et al, 2015).

Polyamide: 1120- 1150 kg/m3

Polyester: 1380- 1410 kg/ m3

Acrylic: 1040- 1080 kg/ m3 1.3 Microplastics Microplastics are defined as plastics less than 5 mm in size, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Wright et al, 2013).

Microplastics are divided into two different groups depending on their origination.

Primary microplastics are those which are manufactured to be of microscopic size. They are generally used in facial-cleaners, cosmetics, pellets and textile fibers. Microplastics used in facial-cleaners and cosmetics, so called ”scrubbers” are marketed as micro-beads or micro-exfoliates.

Secondary microplastics are those derived from large plastic debris breaking down to small plastic fragments.


LINN ÅSTRÖM 7

Physical, biological and chemical processes can result in fragmentation of plastic. For example, exposure of sunlight can result in photo-degradation by ultraviolet radiation (UV), causing oxidation of the polymer matrix, leading to bond cleavage. Degradation of various kinds can result in additives, supposed to give the plastic specific features, leaching out from the plastics (Cole et al, 2011).

Different means of degradation are listed in table 1:

Biodegradation Degradation by living organisms, usually microbes Photodegradation Exposure to sunlight Thermooxidative degradation Oxidative breakdown Hydrolysis Reactions with water Thermal degradation Action of high temperatures

Table 1: Dif ferent ways of p lastic degradat ion. Source: Andrady, 2011. 1.4 Sources to microplastics in the marine environment Marine litter results from disposal of waste transferred directly or indirectly to oceans. Some of the plastic debris comes from landfills located near water or waste thrown directly into the oceans. Other microplastics can enter via industrial or domestic drainage systems (Cole et al, 2011).

Microplastics deriving from textiles mostly enter the oceans through these drainage systems. Some of the particles are trapped in the sewage sludge in wastewater treatment plants, while a large proportion of microplastics will pass through such systems (Magnusson, 2014).

The primary source of microplastic is partly through the domestic drainage. Both natural textile fibers (wool, linen and cotton), and synthetic textile fibers (polyester, nylon) found in oceans are thought to be from washing machines. Earlier studies showed fiber losses of 100-300 fibers per liter effluent from washing machines. The garment shedding the most amounts of fibers was fleece, shedding around 1900 fibers every wash (Browne et al, 2011).

After washing clothes or using cosmetics containing microplastics, plastic particles and fibers are passing via the draining system to the wastewater treatment plants. Via the domestic drainage system 10 000 to 100 000 microplastic particles per cubic meter was found in the incoming water. 70-100% of these particles were retained through wastewater treatment but still many particles could be found in the outgoing effluent. Most of the particles leaving the wastewater treatment plant was of a smaller size (<300 µm) in the range. Non-synthetic particles were removed to a greater extent than synthetic particles (Magnusson, Wahlberg, 2014).

The amount of larger microplastics (>300 µm) in the sewage were less after being filtered through a disc filter with a pore size of 15 µm in Ryaverket waste-water treatment plant, while a sand filter in Henriksdal waste-water treatment plant made no difference on the microplastic content. In Hammarby Sjöstadsverk wastewater treatment plant (a test plant for research), an MBR-membrane (membrane with a pore size of 0, 2 µm) reduced the microscopic plastic particles (<20 µm) in the outgoing effluent by 90 % more than the other two wastewater treatment plants.


LINN ÅSTRÖM 8

The water in wastewater treatment plants was analyzed by FTIR-analysis, showing plastic materials as polypropene, polyethene, polyamide, and acrylic. Fibers found consisted of materials like polyamide (nylon), PET (polyester), polypropene and cotton (Magnusson, Wahlberg, 2014). Another source of plastic debris derived from the manufacture of granules and small resin pellets known as nibs or pellets (Lozano, Mouat, 2009).

1.5 Plastic findings The largest amounts of marine litter, 70 %, are found in the seabeds. Another 15% are found floating in the free masses and the remaining 15% on shores. The geographical concentration of marine debris ranges from zero to 101000 pieces per km2. Among these pieces, around 70% are made of plastic (Lozano, Mouat, 2009).

The dominating particles among the plastics found on the ocean surface are particles smaller than 1 cm in diameter (Cozár et al, 2014). When filtering for microplastics, scientists found 1000 to 1 000 000 more particles when using a 10µm filter compared to a 300µm filter. Norén et al studied 14 locations on the Swedish west coast in search for microplastics. Most plastics found were fibrous and more than 90% of the microplastics came from textile fibers (Norén et al, 2014).

In sediments from the Rostock coastal area, fiber concentrations ranged from 42 fibers to over 200 fibers per kilo dry sediment (Stolte et al, 2015).

A lot of the plastic debris found in ocean waters end up in the subtropical gyres (Cozár et al, 2014), shown in figure 1.

Figure 1: subtropical gyres moving plast ics and other debris away from the sources to end up in great numbers in the gyres and other remote dest inations. Source: http://oceanbites.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/subtropical_gyres.jpg

http://oceanbites.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/subtropical_gyres.jpg

https://www.google.se/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjV3pmhy7PJAhXk_XIKHa5_DPYQjRwIBw&url=http://oceanbites.org/waiter-theres-a-whale-in-my-soup-investigating-the-south-pacific-garbage-patch/&psig=AFQjCNE6qbQZi3avkY_6GC_QFBL8MFGOyg&ust=1448816248417590


LINN ÅSTRÖM 9

The amount of microplastics on shores around the world has been studied and published in many reports. Scientists have found greater amounts on shores near the big cities compared to remote locations. The different fractions of plastic on shores near cities resemble with the fractions found in effluent from the waste-water treatment plants. Brown et al suggest these microplastic fibers were mainly derived from sewage by the washing of clothes. This is showing that the washing of clothes made of synthetic fabrics indirectly contributes to add a considerable amount of microplastic fibers to marine habitats. The different fractions of these plastics are shown in table 2 below (Browne et al, 2011):

Polyester: 56% Acrylic: 23% Polypropylene: 7% Polyethene: 6% Polyamide: 3%

Table 2. Fract ions of plast ic materials found in oceans.

On the west cost of Sweden, a lot of debris end up on the beaches due to currents. Multiple currents from warmer waters merge and later pass by the coast, leaving debris behind on the shores and in the water. Most of these currents are shallow, leading to bring a high rate (80%) of floatable debris, such as different kinds of plastic (Havsmiljöinstitutet, 2014).

1.6 Physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms Scientists have found plastics in samples of plankton collected back in the 1960s but with a significant increase over time (Thompson et al, 2014).

Due to the small size of microplastics, they may be mistaken for food and ingested by organisms, especially by low trophic fauna, with consequences on their health. Accidentally feeding on microplastics can result in physical harm such as blockages and internal abrasion (Wright et al, 2013).

According to a study made on mussels and crabs, microplastics can be transferred through trophic levels. The crabs were fed on mussels that had filtered water contaminated with plastics and these plastics were later found to be translocated to the hemolymph and tissues of the crab. This shows the potential of accumulation of environmental pollutants and the harm on health to animals, including humans (Farrel, Nelson, 2013).

The size of fibrous plastic particles has a wide range according to different studies. Thompson et al. set the size to 20 µm in diameter while others have found fibers from 1µm in diameter and with the length of 15 µm, which is the same size as food items eaten by zooplankters. This could be the reason why zooplankton may be affected when looking for food (Teuten et al, 2009).


LINN ÅSTRÖM 10

1.7 Toxicity Plastics are considered to be biochemically inert materials. Due to the large molecular size, plastics are prohibited to penetrate through the cell membrane and will not interact with the endocrine system. Though plastics are inert, they can carry chemicals of a smaller molecular size that can penetrate into cells where the chemicals can interact with biologically important molecules and disturb the endocrine system.

These chemicals are categorized into two groups:

• Hydrophobic chemicals absorbed from the surrounding seawater • Additives, monomers and oligomers which are component molecules of the plastic (Teuten

et al, 2009)

Toxicity can arise from plastic additives, causing carcinogenesis and endocrine disruption. In addition, microplastics are liable to concentrate persistent organic pollutants (POPs).

POPs in water have, due to their lipophilic surface, a greater affinity to the plastic hydrophobic surface than they have to seawater, leading to POPs adhere to the plastic surface. Due to the small size of microplastics, they have a large surface area to volume ratio and can be heavily contaminated.

When eaten, the microplastics become a possible route of exposure of POPs to the organism and bioaccumulation and biomagnification could occur through the food chain (Wright et al, 2013).

In order to give plastic its desired properties, compounds are added during plastic manufacture. Some of these additives (e.g. antioxidants, catalysts, flame retardants, plasticisers and stabilisers) are toxic for reproduction (Lithner et al, 2008). Organic compounds are used as additives to improve the properties of the plastic. The release of additives to the environment is an unwanted process, both to the manufacturer and nature. The loss of additives shortens the lifetime of the polymer and can do harm to marine living organisms (Teuten et al, 2009).

PVC-plastic can release pollutants as nonylphenol and phenanthrene, and addivives as triclosan and PBDE-47 to tissues in organism (study made on lungworm (Browne et al 2013)).

Pollutants and additives transfer via desorption from microplastics to the tissues. By feeding on plastics, the pollutants and additives can move to tissues via the gut rather than sorption through the body wall (Browne et al 2013).

The migration potential of an additive in a plastic polymer depends on several parameters such as the polymer structure. The polymer has a porous structure in which the additives are dispersed. Depending on the size of the pores and the size of the additive, additives have a small but not insignificant capacity to migrate. Co-migration and heat are other parameters that can affect the migration potential. Compounds that are reactively bonded to plastic polymers requires cleavage of the covalent bond before migration can appear (Teuten et al, 2009).

Microplastics have a larger surface to volume ratio compared to bigger pieces of plastic, which potentially facilitate contaminant exchange (Isensee, Valdes 2015). Due to this large surface-area-to-volume ratio, microplastics can leach additives to marine biota directly after being ingested (Cole et al, 2011)


LINN ÅSTRÖM 11

2. Plastics used in textiles 2.1 Synthetic fibers Fibers from synthetic textiles are one of the sources to primary microplastics in the oceans. Synthetic fibers are produced from crude oil through polymerization, polycondensation or polyaddition processes. (Essel et al, 2015)

Textiles made from synthetic materials commonly consists either of fibers made out of long filaments or of fibers which have been cut into shorter fibers (staples). New fibers such as microfibers and nanofibers are developed and used in many products (Naturskyddsföreningen, 2015).

Different kinds of fabrics have different ability to shed fibers. The “sheddability” depends on the fabric type, the texture, the yarn type, the nature and the number of the fiber types involved. It also depends on whether the fabric is made out of staple fibers or filaments (De Wael et al, 2011).

In 1950 there was an annual production of 2.1 million tons of synthetic fibers. With increased demand, the production reached 49.6 million tons in 2010 (Essel et al, 2015).

Though polyester is dominant, the oldest man-made fiber, nylon, still plays an important role in the fiber business (four million tons globally in 2014 (Carmicael, 2015)). Synthetic fibers account for 60% of the total global fiber production and among the synthetic fibers, polyester itself accounts for 91% (Klar et al, Naturskyddsföreningen, 2014).

Textile synthetic fibers are not only used in clothes but also in furniture, geotextiles, cloth, footballs, backpacks, cuddly toys, buildings, agriculture and many more. Figure 2 shows the global production and predictions for the future of various textile fibers.

F igure 2: g lobal production and predict ions for the future of f ibers for texti le use.

Source: http://www.text i leworld .com/Issues/2015/_2014/Fiber_World/Man-Made_Fibers_Cont inue_To_Grow

http://www.textileworld.com/Issues/2015/_2014/Fiber_World/Man-Made_Fibers_Continue_To_Grow


http://www.textileworld.com/Articles/2015/January/issue_pics/FiberFig1.pdf


LINN ÅSTRÖM 12

2.1.2 Acrylic Acrylic fiber, is defined as “fibers composed of linear macromolecules having in the chain at least 85% (by mass) of acrylonitrile repeating units”. Another type of Acrylic is Modacrylic where the fibers have at least 50% and less than 85% acrylonitrile.

The starting materials in the monomer acrylonitrile are ammonia and propylene, which are reacted with oxygen in the presence of catalysts. The monomers are polymerized into polyacrylonitrile (PAN).

The fiber is produced by polymers spun in a solvent. In a wet spinning process, the fibers are coagulated in an aqueous solution of the same solvent resulting in filaments. Acrylic fibers can also be produced through dry spinning where the solvent is evaporated in a stream of heated inert gas. The process is completed by washing, stretching, drying and crimping.

Acrylic have a wide range of use. It can be made to mimic other fibers such as cotton when spun on short staple equipment. Some acrylics are made to be fuzzy which may pill or fuzz easily while other acrylic fabrics are low-pilling variants (CIRFS 1, 2015).

Acrylic

2.1.3 Polyamide Polyamide is a fiber that is composed of linear macromolecules having in the chain recurring amide linkages where at least 85% of the amides are joined to aliphatic or cycloaliphatic units. Of the many different types of polyamide, two kinds are widely more used than others. One of them is known as polyamide 6.6 due to both chemicals containing six carbon atoms. It is produced by reactions between amines and acids such as hexamethylene diamine and adipic acid (CIRFS 2, 2015). It can also be produced from cyclic amides such as ε-caprolactam (Naturskyddsföreningen, 2015). The polyamide polymers are pumped through spinneret holes at a high temperature, being formed into filaments. They are later cooled and solidified in an air stream. Staple fibers are produced by bundling of many filaments to form a tow, which is stretched, crimped and cut into the desired length (CIRFS 2, 2015).

Polyamide 6.6


LINN ÅSTRÖM 13

2.1.4 Polyester Polyester is a fiber with linear macromolecules, which have at least 85% of terephthalic acid and a diol by mass. The production of polyester is similar to the one of polyamide. Some polyester fibers are produced by melting of polyester polymer chips, which are stretched, crimped and cut into staples. Other fibers are made from polymers, which are produced by a continuous process and formed into fibers without the production of chips (CIRFS 3, 2015).

Polyester contains of polymers with an ester functional group in their main chain. The most common name is polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Polyester fibers sometimes have blended properties where the synthetic fibers are spun together with natural fibers. Cotton is commonly used as a blending product resulting in strong, wrinkle and tear-resistant products. Polyester is the common name of the fiber. Another more commonly used name is PET (Carmichael, 2015). Fleece is produced from 100 % polyester.

In 2008, more than 79% of the PET produced was used for textile purposes (Naturskyddsföreningen, 2015).

Polyester fibers have a dominant role on the textile market and the demand for the fibers is increasing. In 2002 polyester passed cotton as the most common fabric to use in textiles.

In 1980, the demand for polyester fibers was 5.2 million tons globally and in year 2000 it had reached 19.2 million tons. Only fourteen years later, in 2014, the demand was put at 46.1 million tons.

A lot of the polyester fibers are developed in China, India and Southeast Asia. China accounts for 69% of the global polyester production. Adding India and Southeast Asia to the sum takes us to 86% of the global production (Klar et al, Naturskyddsföreningen, 2014).

Polyester

2.3 Detergents In earlier studies, researchers have not been able to use detergent or conditioners when filtering for microplastics from washing machines because of the blocking of the filter papers. They do suggest further investigations on the effects of detergent and conditioner on the quantities of fibers in effluent (Browne et al, 2011).

One of the active components in detergents is surfactants (surface active agent). Surfactants contain both an oil-soluble and a water-soluble component. They lower the surface tension between liquids or between a liquid and a solid. In detergents, they are used for dissolving dirt and fat.


LINN ÅSTRÖM 14

Due to the two sides of surfactants, they will orientate so each part points to the solvent where it is most solvable. Surfactants can, when high concentrations, form micelles. Micelles are aggregates of surfactant molecules where the hydrophobic parts point to the middle. The concentration needed to form micelles is called the critical micelle concentration (c.m.c.). Micelles can be used to dissolve oils which otherwise would not be solvable in water. Within the micelles small drops of oil become present (Rosen, Kunjappu, 2012).

2.3.1 Surfactants in liquid Via Color C12-15 Pareth-7

Sodium Laureth Sulfate

Potassium Cocoate

TEA-Cocoate


LINN ÅSTRÖM 15

3. Method Most fabrics were made in the textile laboratory at The Swedish School of Textiles. Some fabrics, unable to be made in the laboratory, was provided by Tenson. The fabrics made on site were in need of dyeing to distinguish the correct fibers when analyzing. Chosen fabrics were repolished. All fabrics were washed with detergent while some chosen fabrics also were washed without detergent. See figure 3.

Figure 3. Different paths in method depending on the fabrics features.

3.1. Preparing fabrics

3.1.1 The making of fabrics All fabrics, except the fleece fabrics, are made in the production laboratory at the Swedish school of textiles. This makes it possible for us to know as much about the fabrics as possible to facilitate for accurate conclusions. Sofia Roslund at the Swedish school of textiles made most of the fabrics and was of great help in providing information regarding the processes. In this laboratory, they were no able to make fleece, which is why Tenson provided with three of their most commonly used fleece fabrics.

3.1.2 Dyeing To be able to distinguish fibers deriving from the tested fabric from excess fibers (from other fabrics, dust and more), each fabric was given a specific color. The machine used for dyeing was a jet machine, Mathis lab-jet JFO. 3.1.3 Repolising All fabrics, except microfleece and fleece, were repolished with the purpose to see if there were any difference between worn clothes and new clothes. The repolish was performed in a sander, Black&Decker KA85 Belt sander 75 x 457 mm, with an abrasive belt cloth of 60 grains for 1 second.

cutting pre-washwashing

with detergent

filtering analysis

making of fabrics dyeing cutting pre-wash washing filtering analysis

making of fabrics dyeing repolishing cutting pre-wash washing filtering analysis

cutting pre-washwashing without

detergentfiltering analysis


LINN ÅSTRÖM 16

3.1.4 Cutting In order to avoid errors of loose, cut of fibers from the edges and to get each test sample in the exact same size, the fabrics were cut in to pieces by a laser cutter, GCC LaserPro Spirit GLS (settings; speed 9,4, power: 93, PPI: 1417). 3.3 Washing 3.3.1 Prewash All samples of fabric were prewashed in a Wascator FOM 71 Mp washing machine in 40ºc for 15 minutes, according to standard SS-EN ISO 6330 to remove excess fibers and dust from earlier steps.

No detergent was used during the prewash.

3.3.2 Main wash Washing was done mainly according to standard SS-EN ISO 105-C06 for coloring tests. Instead of using, according to standard, 10 x 4 cm fabrics, 10 x 10 cm fabrics were used. The washing was made in a Gyrowash one bath 815/8.

Detergent: Liquid Via color.

125 ml of water and 0,375 ml liquid detergent and 25 small metal balls was put together with one sample of fabric into a Gyrowash steel container.

The samples were washed for 30 minutes in 60º C.

When washed, the samples were picked up by a pinsetter and rinsed with 5 x 2 ml of water to remove loose fibers from the fabric (this to simulate the rinse in a washing machine). The samples were squeezed and the water from the squeezing together with the water from washing was put together in glass containers with a polypropene cap. The squeezing was done to simulate centrifugation. The inside of the Gyrowash metal container was rinsed with 5 x 2 ml of water to remove fibers attached. This waste water was also put into the glass container.

The fabrics were washed separately depending on color to avoid contaminating fibers from earlier washes.

Six replicates were made for each fabric.

Six reference samples were produced as above, without fabric, in order to measure possible dust contamination in the water or equipment used.


LINN ÅSTRÖM 17

Figure 4. Steel container, Gyrowasher and fi ltering. 3.4 Filtering The water was filtered through a 1,2 µm glassfiberfilter. Before filtering the water, the glass container was lightly shaken to remove fibers adhered to the sides of the bottle and in to the solvent. For filtering a funnel, size 42.5 mm and a filter with a pore size of 1.2 µm was placed in a filtering bottle attached to a vacuum machine, Edwards oil mist filter emf20. Water from one sample at the time was poured carefully through the filter to assure that no fibers were lost on the sides. The filter was moved to a glass jar using a pincette for analysis. 3.5 Analysis The glassfiberfilters were divided with a cross into four areas and each of these areas was divided further into another four areas (tot 16 areas on each filter). This was done to allow for easier counting of the fibers. A filter was placed in a microscope with the enlargement of 40 x. Fibers in each area were counted (whole filter for samples with few fibers and half the filter for samples with lots of fibers). For samples with a low amount of fibers, all fibers were classified by size. In samples with a large amount of fibers, representative fibers were measured within a few areas. Fibers were classified by size into five groups, 1 as the smallest and 5 as the biggest. 3.6 Statistics SPSS 23 was used for statistics. Test of homogeneity of variances showed on a non-homogeneity among the results, indicating therefor that non-parametric tests had to be used. Independent samples test, Kruskal-Wallis, were used with a significance level at 0,05. The data is also tested with Student-Newman-Keuls and Tukey HSD with post hoc.


LINN ÅSTRÖM 18

4. Results Fabrics made of different materials and with different techniques shed unequal amounts of fibers. The fabrics with the greatest fiber loss were fleece. In the figure below, all fabrics are included, as well as repolished fabrics and fabrics washed with or without detergent.

Figure 5 . Total mean shedding. Amount of f ibers from fabrics, including repol ished fabrics and fabrics washed with or without detergent. n = 6 . 1 Polyester A (filament) 13 Acrylic G, repolished 2 Polyester A (filament), repolished 14 Polyamide H 3 Polyester B (filament) 15 Polyamide H, repolished 4 Polyester B (filament), repolished 16 Polyester I (staple) 5 Polyester C (filament) 17 Polyester I (staple), repolished 6 Polyester C (filament), repolished 18 Microfleece, Tenson 7 Polyester D (filament) 19 Microfleece, Tenson, without detergent 8 Polyester D (filament) , repolished 20 Microfleece, Polartech 9 Terrycloth, polyester E (napped) 21 Microfleece, Polartech, without detergent 10 Terrycloth, polyester F (napped) 22 Fleece, Tenson 11 Acrylic G 23 Fleece, Tenson, without detergent 12 Acrylic G, without detergent


LINN ÅSTRÖM 19

4.1 All fabrics Comparing synthetic fabrics made of different materials show a great variety in number of shedded fibers. Fleece and microfleece shed significantly more fibers than any other fabric. Microfleece shed more than ordinary fleece, though the difference is not significant. Polyester A, B, C and D are made of filament fibers. Among them, Polyester D shed significantly more fibers. There is a significant (α=0,05) difference in the amount of fiber loss among polyester A-D. Fabrics made of yarns with more filaments shed more fibers compared to fabrics made with yarns with few filaments. Another factor influencing the degree of shedding is how tightly the yarn is knitted in the fabric. More tightly knitted yarn results in more fibers on the same area as with a loose knitted yarn, resulting in a greater fiber loss (Petterson, Roslund, 2015). The polyester made of staple filaments is knitted in a similar way as Polyester D and they shed equal amounts of fibers. In this study, no difference was found between fabrics made of staple filaments compared to fabrics made of filament fibers. Terrycloth made of polyester is the starting material for fleece. It is fed through a napper and a shearing machine to create the characteristic fuzzy texture of fleece. The terrycloth (polyester E and F) has only partly gone through this process due to lack of machinery, why it is not further used in this study. Terrycloth E and F shed much less than the Polartech and Tenson fleece. Terrycloth E and F is made in the production laboratory at the Swedish school of textiles and is not the specific starting material for the tested fleece materials. Hypothesis 1: There is not a difference between fabrics in the amount of fibers shed when washed, can be rejected.

Figure 7. Enlargement from figure 6, fabrics made in the texti le laboratory at the Swedish university of text iles, Borås. n=6 .

Figure 6. Amount of f ibers shed from texti les made of different fabrics with different techniques. All fabrics were washed with detergent. Repolished fabrics are excluded. n=6 .


LINN ÅSTRÖM 20

4.2 Repolishing The fabrics were repolished to simulate the effect from used clothes. Comparisons between repolished fabrics and non-repolished fabrics showed on a greater fiber loss from repolished fabrics. This could indicate on a greater loss of fibers from used clothes than from new clothes. When fabrics are repolished, the surface is damaged and the spun yarn is cut into more pieces than a newly spun yarn. More cut edges of a yarn entails more fiber loss. Hypothesis 2: Used/ damaged clothes do not shed more fibers than new clothes, can be rejected.

Figure 8. The shedding of f ibers from fabrics which have been repol ished to s imulate the use of c lothes. There is a s ignificant difference between repol ished and non-repolished fabrics (α=0,05). All compared fabrics are washed with detergent. The comparison was made between seven dif ferent fabrics. n( r e p o l i sh e d )=42, n( n o n r e p o l i sh e d )=42.


LINN ÅSTRÖM 21

4.3 Amount and distribution of fibers with different sizes between fabrics

Figure 9. Amount and distribution of fibers in different sizes between the fabrics. Effluent from fabrics washed without detergent are excluded. Repolished fabrics are included. The y-axis shows the amount of fibers in a specific size. Size 1 = 0,025mm- 0,25 mm, size 2= 0,25mm- 1 mm, size 3= 1mm- 1,75mm, size 4= 1,75mm-3 mm, size 5= >3 mm. n=12


LINN ÅSTRÖM 22

4.4 Fleece and microfleece Fleece and microfleece were the fabrics with the greatest amount of fiber loss among the compared fabrics. There was not a significant difference between the fleece materials though the amount of shed fibers varied between fabrics washed with or without detergent. The effect of washing the fabrics with or without detergent was larger on the Polartech microfleece and the Tenson fleece. When fleece is produced, the woven fibers are cut on the surface in order to give the fleece its special features. This is probably the reason why the amounts of shedded fibers is so great.

Figure 10. Fleece and microfleece washed with and without detergent. N=6

Total mean, all fleece fabrics Fibers per 150 ml effluent, 1 dm2 fabric Fibers per liter effluent, 1 m2 fabric Use of detergent 1104 7360 No detergent 618 4120

Table 3. Total mean, a ll f leece fabrics. By using the chosen method, 1 m2 fabric is washed in 15 l iters of water. n( n o d e t e r g e n t )=18, n ( d e t e r g e n t )=18.


LINN ÅSTRÖM 23

4.5 Use of detergent A significant difference was found in number of fibers released when washing with or without detergent. In earlier studies, they have not been able to filter water-containing detergent due to the clogging of the filter. Using the Gyrowasher enabled the use of less fabric and less water, which later enabled filtering of effluent containing detergent. Washing textiles with detergent is the most common way to clean clothes and the presence of detergent makes them shed a greater amount of fibers. There is a significant difference in the amount of fibers between effluents with detergent compared to effluents without detergent. A possible reason for this is the impact of surfactants, which are one of the active parts in detergent. Hypothesis 3: Detergent don not have an impact on the amount of fibers shed when washed, can be rejected.

Figure 11. Amount of shedded fibers in the presence of detergent (α=0,05). n=18.


LINN ÅSTRÖM 24

5. Discussion 5.1 The size of the problem Among the fibers found in oceans, almost 80% consists of polyester and acrylic (Brown et al, 2011). Though many different products are made from these materials, they are also widely used in the textile industry.

In the study made of Norén et al, they found that more than 90 % of the debris along the west coast of Sweden consisted of textile fibers (Norén et al, 2014). The demand for polyester is already great and the forecast is predicting an even greater demand in the future (Carmichael, 2015). Synthetic fibers account for 60% of the total global fiber production and among the synthetic fibers, polyester itself accounts for 91% (Klar et al, Naturskyddsföreningen, 2014).

Compared to other plastics found in oceans, like pellets or nibs, fibers have a greater surface to volume ratio. This could possibly mean that they are able to attract more chemicals than other microplastics. The fibers found in the study had a very small area and were only visible in microscope. Though when measured, their length positioned them in the category of microplastics (<5 mm).

Synthetic textile fibers already in the oceans are unlikely to be able to be collected. They are small and of various density which make them end up in different layers of the water column (Wright et al, 2013). The amount of effort collecting the synthetic textile fibers would not be environmentally motivated if you compare the costs and the benefits, though catching them before entering the oceans probably is.

5.2 Filters in washing machines and sewage treatment plants – possible solutions Due to the small size of the microfibers, they are probably hard to catch in both washing machines and domestic sewage treatment plants. Filters with very small pores would have to be used which would include the need for strong filters made of materials that are able to handle the pressure from great amounts of water and which does not clog too much.

Incorporating filters into washing machines could probably be a solution, but as mentioned earlier, the filters have a tendency to clog. To be able to use filters in washing machines a different kind of detergent would have to be developed or some other solution allowing for water containing detergent to pass through the fine filter.

Fibers entering sewage treatment plants are often trapped in the sludge but to a greater extent with natural fibers than synthetic fibers. This is probably due to the higher density of synthetic fibers. Knowing this, studies could be made to optimize the sedimentation of synthetic fibers while in the sewage treatment plants.

Filters in sewage treatment plants are already in place for some sites and some of them seem to work better than others. Incorporating the filters with the best effect on micropastics to more sewage treatment plants could be a good solution.


LINN ÅSTRÖM 25

5.3 Raising awareness – textile shedding standard Since there are some problems in using filters, other alternatives are necessary to battle the problem with synthetic fiber loss from textiles. Polyester is one of the fabrics predicted to increase why the problem is probably only going to get bigger. Companies markets fleece garments made from recycled PET as an environmentally friendly garment, not thinking about the great amount of fiber loss. A greater awareness is in need for both usage and production of fabrics from synthetic fibers. Fleece and microfleece shed the greatest amount of synthetic fibers among the compared fabrics why these fabrics should be the first to be decreased in use. Labelling of clothes and other textiles according to a textile-shedding standard could possibly raise the awareness among costumers in both buying and washing textile synthetic materials.

5.4 Differences among the tested fabrics All the washed fabrics in the study shed fibers but there was a great gap between the different kinds of fleece and the rest of the fabrics. When fleece is produced, the knitted yarns are cut on the surface in order to give the fleece its special features. This is probably the reason why the amounts of shed fibers is so great. It is probably also the reason why the repolished fabrics showed an increase in shedding. The other fabrics tested were tightly knitted and the fibers not damaged in any way, which is why the fibers tended to stay attached in the fabric, resulting in less shedding. Two of the fleece fabrics showed on a significant difference between using and not using detergent. A possible reason for more fiber shedding at the presence of detergents is the impact of surfactants. Since both surfactants and fleece are made from petroleum products, and surfactants are used for solving fat from textiles, the surfactants may also dissolve parts of the synthetic fibers making them shed more. The impact of surfactants and micelle formation in relation to synthetic fibers could be a subject for future research. The third fleece fabric (Tenson microfleece) did not show the same difference in fiber loss. The reason for this is unknown due to lack of information about the specific fabric, but a hypothesis is that the garment could been impregnated with water repellant or other protection. Polyester showed a great variety in shedding depending on the fabrics construction. A comparing of plastic materials must be conducted on fabrics that are constructed and produced in the same way to be able to tell a difference. In this study, this could not be done why no conclusions were made regarding the differences between the different materials. All conclusions are made regarding the construction of the fabric or in comparison between equal fabrics. In earlier studies (Brown et al, 2011), the amount of fibers per liter effluent is shown, but the size of the garment and the total amount of effluent is lacking, why the amount of fibers loss in this study are not able to compare directly.

5.5 Method and Errors In the study, standardized methods were used when possible, but those standards were not made to be used for shedding tests. Since there are no standardized methods for shedding of fibers when washing fabrics, the used method was designed partly from these standardized methods. Some of the fabrics used in the study were not made on site, which resulted in less information about these specific fabrics. One error that would have occurred if we were not to use the laser cutter is the shedding from cut of fibers from the samples edges. The laser cutter did not only make the samples in the same size, it also melted the edges, resulting in samples more comparable to clothes.


LINN ÅSTRÖM 26

Washing fabrics in a Gyrowasher is a relatively quick procedure since eight samples could be washed in the machine at the same time. It also resulted in the need for less material due to the small sample size. The main errors are probably due to the human factor. All pieces of fabric was squeezed by hand to simulate centrifugation where differences in the squeezing probably occurred. However, this method enabled the use of less fabric and less water, which made it possible to filter the water containing detergent without clogging of the filters. If this method were to be used again, a new technique for simulating the centrifugation is needed. Some samples had a greater dispersion than others, including mainly the fleece. This dispersion would probably become less with some development of the method.

6. Conclusions Synthetic textile fibers are widely used in the textile industry. Among the synthetic fabrics, polyester is the one dominating. The demand is increasing and the size of the problem with fiber loss from such a material will get bigger. Fleece and microfleece are made of polyester, and both this and other studies have shown that those fabrics shed a great amount of fibers. In this study, water was able to filter thus containing detergent due to the use of less fabric and water in the Gyrowasher. The tests showed on an increase in shedding when washing fabrics with detergent. The main conclusions in the study are:

• Different synthetic textiles shed unequally amounts of fibers. • The amount of shedding depend more on the features of a fabric than on the type of plastic. • Most fibers are lost from fleece and microfleece, and there was a large difference between the

various fleece fabrics and the rest of the fabrics. • Using detergent results in more shedding compared with using water alone.

One purpose with the report was to see if there were any differences in shedding between different materials, if there were a difference in washing used clothes compared to new clothes and if detergent could have an effect on the shedding. Polyester showed a great variety in shedding depending on the construction of the fabric. To compare specific plastic materials, fabrics constructed and produced in the same way is necessary to be able to tell a difference. More research is in need to develop a standard for shedding and there is a need for many more tests on various fabrics to make the exact conclusions.

7. Recommendations Standard method for textile shedding

Labelling of clothes according to their amount of shedding

Development of clothes that do not shed

Filter in washing machines and waste water treatment plants

Bann microplastics in all cosmetics and cleaning chemicals

Use biodegradable materials in clothes that does not involve plastics

Studies on the effects of surfactants on synthetic textiles when it comes to fiber loss


LINN ÅSTRÖM 27

8. Fibers

Polyester A-D

Terrycloth

Acrylic


LINN ÅSTRÖM 28

Polyamide

Microfleece Tenson

Microfleece Polartech

Fleece Tenson


LINN ÅSTRÖM 29

9. References

Andrady, A (2011). Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin. August 2011 vol 62(8): 1596-1605. Doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030 Barnes, D. Galgani, F. Thompson, R. Barlaz, M (2009). Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philisophical transactions of the royal society. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0205 Browne et al (2011) Accumulation of plastics on shorelines worldwide: sources and sinks. Environmental science and technology, no 45, sep 06 2011. Doi: 10.1021/es201811s Browne, M. Niven, S. Galloway, T. Rowland, S. Thompson, R (2013). Microplastic moves pollutants and additives to worms, reducing functions linked to health and biodiversity. Current biology 23, 2388-2392. Doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.012 Carmichael, A (2014). Man-made fibers continue to grow. Textileworld.com published February, 3, 2015. http://www.textileworld.com/Issues/2015/_2014/Fiber_World/Man-Made_Fibers_Continue_To_Grow Cole, M. Lindeque, P. Halsband, C. S Galloway, T. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, dec 2011, vol 62(12) doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025 Cózar et al, Pastic debris in the open ocean (2014). PNAS, vol 111 no 28. ISBN: 10239-10244 De Wael, K. Lepot, L. Lunstroot, K. Gason, F (2010). Evaluation of the shedding potential of textile materials. Science and Justice, dec 2010, vol 50(4):192-194. Doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2010.06.001 Enders, K. Lenz, R. Stedmon, C, A. Nielsen, T, A. (2015). Abundance, size and polymer composition of marine microplastics in the Atlantic Ocean and thir modelled vertical distribution. Marine Pollution Bulletin 100 (2015) 70-81. Doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.09.027 European Man-made Fibers Association (CIRFS1) (2015). Acrylic http://www.cirfs.org/ManmadeFibres/Fibrerange/Acrylic.aspx European Man-made Fibers Association (CIRFS2) (2015). Polyamide. http://www.cirfs.org/ManmadeFibres/Fibrerange/Polyamide.aspx European Man-made Fibers Association (CIRFS3) (2015). Polyester. http://www.cirfs.org/ManmadeFibres/Fibrerange/Polyester.aspx Farrell, P. Nelson, K. (2013) Trophic level transfer of microplastic: Mytius edilus (L.) to Carcinus maenas (L.). Institute of marine sciences, University of Portsmouth, Environmental pollution 177 (2013) 1-3



http://www.cirfs.org/ManmadeFibres/Fibrerange/Polyester.aspx


LINN ÅSTRÖM 30

Frias, J.P. Sobral, A.M. Ferreira (2010). Organic polutants in microplastics from two beaches near the Portugese coast. Marine Poluution Buletin 2010 Nov;60(11):1988-92. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.07.030 Havsmiljöinstitutet (2014) Västerhavet 2014. ISSN: 1104-3458. Ale Tryckteam april 2014. Isensee, K. Valdes, L. (2015) Marine litter: Microplastics. GDSR 2015, IOC-UNESCO Klar, M. Gunnarsson, D. Prevodnik, A. Hedfors, C. Dahl, U. Naturskyddsföreningen (2014) Allt du (inte) vill veta om plast. Lithner, D. Damberg, J. Dave, G. Larsson, Å. 2008. Leachates from plastic consumer products – Screening for toxicity with Daphnia magna. Chemosphere 74 (2009) 1195-1200. Doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.11.022 Lozano, R. Mouat, J. (Feb 2009) Marine litter in the Nort-East Atlantic region. KIMO International, OSPAR comission. ISBN 978-1-906840-26-6 Magnusson, K. Wahlber, C. Mikroskopiska skräppartiklar i vatten från avloppsreningsverk. IVL Svenska miljöinstitutet Augusti 2014, rapport nr B 2208 Magnusson, K (2014). Mikroskräp i avloppsvatten från tre norska avloppsreningsverk. IVL Svenska miljöinstitutet december 2014. Rapport C 71 Nationalencykopedin, textilfiber

Naturskyddsföreningen (2015) Information om de vanligaste plasterna och tillsatsämnena http://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/info-om-plast Narurskyddsföreningen (2015), raklödder till fiskarna Norén, F. Norén, K. Magnusson, K (2014). Marint mikroskopiskt skräp, undersökning längs svenska västkusten 2013 och 2014. IVL, Svenska miljöinstitutet rapport nr 2014:52. Länsstyrelsen västra götaland. ISSN: 1403-168X. Pettersson, H. Roslund, S (2015) Tvättemission. The Swedish School of Textiles, report nr 2015.2.18 Rosen, M.J. Kunjappu J.T (2012) Sufractants and interfacial phenomena, fourt edition. John Wiley and sons inc. publications. Hoboken, New Jersey. Stolte, A. Forster, S. Gerdts, G. Schuber, H. (2015). Microplastic concentrations in beach sediments along the German Baltic coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin 99 (2015) 216-229. Doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.07.022 Teuten, E et al (2009) Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Thompson et al (2004). Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Science, 7 may 2004 vol 304.

http://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/info-om-plast


LINN ÅSTRÖM 31

Thompson , R (2006) Plastic debris in the marine environment: consequences and solutions. Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 p107-115 Wright, S. Thompson, R. Galloway, S. (2013). The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: A review. Environmental pollution, July 2013, vol 178. Doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.031


LINN ÅSTRÖM 32

APPENDIX 1

Polyester A Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 Size 5 A1 3 4 1 A2 2 4 1 A3 1 3 1 A4 4 1 A5 2 1 1 A6 4 3 1

Polyester A, repolished Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 Size 5 a1 2 1 a2 2 a3 2 1 1 1 a4 1 1 a5 2 1 1 1 a6 1 2 3

Polyester B Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 Size 5 B1 2 2 B2 1 4 B3 1 2 1 B4 2 3 1 B5 2 4 B6 6 1

Polyester B, repolished Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 Size 5 b1 1 3 3 1 1 b2 3 4 2 b3 3 6 9 3 b4 3 2 1 1 b5 3 5 1 1 2 b6 3 4 4 1

Polyester C Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 Size 5 C1 1 1 1 C2 1 1 C3 2 2 C4 1 1 C5 2 4 1 2 C6 1 1


LINN ÅSTRÖM 33

Polyester C, repolished Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 Size 5 c1 1 4 5 1 c2 2 2 1 c3 1 5 7 2 1 c4 1 3 6 5 1 c5 2 7 2 1 c6 1 3 5 1 1

Polyester D Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 Size 5 D1 9 9 D2 9 7 D3 12 7 D4 8 9 D5 9 8 1 D6 5 8 2

Polyester D, repolished Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 Size 5 d1 7 37 27 14 2 d2 12 23 26 12 9 d3 5 18 4 1 1 d4 2 5 4 7 d5 3 6 9 2 1 d6 2 14 8 2 3

Terrycloth E Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 Size 5 E1 17 11 1 E2 4 1 2 E3 6 2 E4 8 3 1 E5 13 1 E6 13 7 1

Terrycloth F Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 Size 5 F1 4 3 F2 7 3 F3 5 5 F4 2 5 2 F5 5 6 1 F6 2

Acrylic G Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 Size 5 G1 3 1 G2 3 1 2 G3 2 1 1 G4 1 1 G5 2 3 G6 2 2


LINN ÅSTRÖM 34

Acrylic G, without detergent Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 Size 5 G1 2 1 G2 1 G3 1 G4 1 2 G5 1 G6 1 2

Acrylic G, repolished Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 Size 5 g1 5 5 1 g2 6 6 1 1 1 g3 3 3 1 g4 2 2 1 g5 4 3 2 g6 4 3 2

Polyamide H Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 Size 5 H1 2 H2 1 H3 3 H4 1 H5 2 H6 1 2

Polyamide H, repolished Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 Size 5 h1 3 1 h2 4 1 h3 2 1 h4 2 1 h5 3 h6 2 1

Polyester, staple (I) Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 Size 5 N1 1 7 9 1 2 N2 2 6 7 1 N3 2 8 5 N4 1 4 6 1 N5 2 6 3 N6 1 6 3 1

Polyester (I), repolished Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 Size 5 n1 3 22 12 4 n2 2 9 22 13 2 n3 1 8 18 11 3 n4 1 6 21 13 2 n5 2 7 19 12 3 n6 1 7 20 13 3


LINN ÅSTRÖM 35

Tenson microfleece Total 1 1148 2 922 3 772 4 1024 5 776 6 900

Polartech microfleece Total 1 1724 2 1356 3 1238 4 918 5 844 6 986

Polartech microfleece, without detergent Total 1 478 2 556 3 476 4 438 5 582 6 450

Tenson fleece Total 1 1128 2 940 3 1406 4 1576 5 1056 6 1156

Tenson fleece, without detergent Total 1 420 2 316 3 360 4 396 5 390 6 414

Tenson microfleece, without detergent Total 1 940 2 1164 3 1150 4 876 5 760 6 968

Documents

Shedding of synthetic microfibers from textiles · Shedding of fibers is a relatively new concept in textile development, which is why the main purpose of the project is to raise