Science of the Total Environment 598 (2017) 1116–1129

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Review

Synthetic fibers as microplastics in the marine environment: A review

from textile perspective with a focus on domestic washings
Flavia Salvador Cesa a,⁎, Alexander Turra b, Julia Baruque-Ramos a
a
University of São Paulo, School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, Av. Arlindo Bettio, 1000, 03828-000 São Paulo, SP, Brazil
b
University of São Paulo, Oceanographic Institute, Praca do Oceanográfico, 191, 05508-120 São Paulo, SP, Brazil

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Plastics and microplastics are one of the

main anthropogenic footprints of our
age.
• Synthetic fibers as a subgroup of
microplastics are poorly understood.
• Fibers released from domestic washing
machines are influenced by diverse fac-
tors.
• Fiber pollution is a common subject be-
tween environmental and textile areas.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The ubiquity of plastic materials in the environment has been, for long, a matter of discussion. Smaller particles,
Received 23 February 2017 named microplastics (b 5 mm), gained attention more recently and are now the focus of many studies, especially
Received in revised form 13 April 2017 for their particularities regarding sources, characteristics and effects (e.g., surface-area-to-volume ratio which
Accepted 22 April 2017
can increase their potential to transport toxic substances). Fibers from textile materials are a subgroup of
Available online xxxx
microplastics and can be originated from domestic washings, as machine filters and wastewater treatment plants
Editor: D. Barcelo (WWTPs) are not specifically designed to retain them. Once in the environment, fibers can reach concentrations
up to thousands of particles per cubic meter, being available to be ingested by a broad range of species. In this
Keywords: scenario, this review adds and details the textile perspective to the microplastics exploring nomenclature, char-
Fiber acteristics and factors influencing emission, but also evidencing gaps in knowledge needed to overcome this
Microplastic issue. Preliminarily, general information about marine litter and plastics, followed by specific aspects regarding
Microfiber textile fibers as microplastics, were introduced. Then fiber sources to microplastic pollution were discussed,
Domestic washing mainly focusing on domestic washings that pass through WWTPs. Studies that reveal domestic washing as
Environment pollution
microplastic sources are scarce and there is a considerable lack of standardization in methods as well as incorpo-
ration of textile aspects in experimental design. Knowledge gaps include laundry parameters (e.g., water temper-
ature, use of chemicals) and textile articles characteristics (e.g., yarn type, fabric structure) orchestrated by
consumers' choice. The lack of information on the coverage and efficiency of sewage treatment systems to re-
move textile fibers also prevent a global understanding of such sources. The search of alternatives and applicable

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: f_cesa@usp.br (F. Salvador Cesa), turra@usp.br (A. Turra), jbaruque@usp.br (J. Baruque-Ramos).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.172
0048-9697/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 F. Salvador Cesa et al. / Science of the Total Environment 598 (2017) 1116–1129 1117

solutions should come from an integrated, synergic and global perspective, of both environmental and textile
area, which still need to be fostered.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117
2. Plastics in the marine environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
2.1. Origin and distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
2.2. Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
3. Microplastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
3.1. Size definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
3.2. Origin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
4. Textile fibers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
4.1. Fibers' toxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
4.2. Fibers in microplastic context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121
4.3. Fibers' sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121
4.3.1. Fibers degraded in external environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121
4.3.2. Fibers degraded in internal environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123
4.4. Fibers in WWTPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123
5. Domestic textile washings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1124
5.1. Global estimates and consumption habits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1124
5.2. Dynamics involved in laundering processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1124
6. Domestic washings and microplastic pollution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125
7. Final remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126

1. Introduction
Since the development of the first synthetic resin, bakelite, in the be-
ginning of the 20th century, plastics have become indispensable in our
lives, in a manner that, currently, everything or almost everything we
consume is made entirely or partially from this material (Cole et al.,
2011; Sivan, 2011). Produced from synthetic polymers, mainly derived
from fossil fuels, their versatility is justified by the alliance of relevant
material properties with low costs (GESAMP, 2015a; Barnes et al.,
2009; Thompson et al., 2009).
Since the start of its mass production, in 1950 (UNEP, 2016), the
global plastic production has turned from inexpressive 1.7 million
tonnes (Plastic Europe, 2013) to N 300 million tonnes in 2014 (Plastic
Europe, 2015). In other words, the plastic production reached in the
first decade of the actual century the same quantity generated in the
whole previous one (Thompson et al., 2009). This consumption follow-
ed a paradigm change: from limited prognostics of a cleaner world
(Derraik, 2002; Thompson et al., 2009) to the necessity of
comprehending what is considered one of the main anthropogenic foot-
prints of our age (Barnes et al., 2009).
Currently, it is estimated that plastic manufacture consumes around
8% of world's petroleum, being 4% utilized as raw material and the other
4% used as energy in the process (Hopewell et al., 2009). During this
transformation, the majority of synthetic polymers are mixed with ad-
ditives that, beyond improving final product properties, can be toxic
and cause collateral effects when inhaled, ingested or in dermal contact
with organisms (UNEP, 2016). Beyond concerns about the exhaustion of
fossil fuels reservoirs and the health risks related to chemical compo-
nents, there is a growing concern about plastic presence in the environ-
ment. Through non intentional liberations or indiscriminate discards
(Wright et al., 2013) synthetic materials of several sources, forms,
types, sizes and colors have accumulated specially in the marine envi-
ronment (Moore, 2008), where they represent up to 95% of the debris
found on coastlines, sea surface and ocean floor (Galgani et al., 2015).
With a durability estimated from decades to millions of years, but still
not known precisely due to the recent history of this industry (Barnes
et al., 2009; Derraik, 2002; Zalasiewicz et al., 2015), it is believed that,
with the exception of what was incinerated, the majority of plastic
items introduced into the environment, persist, until now,
unmineralized in its integral form or as fragments (Thompson et al.,
2005).
Since recent publications suggest higher microplastics (plastic parti-
cles or fragments b 5 mm) abundance in comparison to larger items
(Browne et al., 2010; Eriksen et al., 2014; Law and Thompson, 2014), as-
sociated to their larger gaps in knowledge (Thompson et al., 2004; Cole
et al., 2011), institutions like United Nations Environment Assembly and
European Union defend the necessity of improving what is known re-
garding these materials (Browne et al., 2011). In this sense, recent re-
ports, such as those published by UNEP (2016) and GESAMP (2015b,
2016), provide an integrated assessment from specialists, discussing
published findings and calling for realistic management changes consid-
ering plastic's life cycle.
As synthetic fibers spread from domestic washings are considered
part of the debris present in the environment (Browne et al., 2011; Li
et al., 2016; Wright et al., 2013), scored recently with a 7/10 degree pri-
ority as a microplastic source (Verschoor et al., 2014), there is an urgent
need to explore issues related to this kind of pollution. Perspectives on
the increase of synthetic textiles consumption and frequency of home
laundry (Laitala et al., 2011) further extend this urgency.
The main objective of this review is to approach microplastics
through the perspective of textile fibers exploring nomenclature and
characteristics, as well as sources and pathways into the environment,
which are relevant for environmental field studies. Preliminarily gener-
al information about plastics in marine environment is discussed,
followed by specific aspects regarding microplastics and textile fibers,
especially those from domestic washing machines effluents that pass
through WWTPs. In this sense, knowledge gaps due to laundry param-
eters and textile characteristics are highlighted in order to promote fur-
ther scientific development, but also management of this source of
marine pollution.
1118 F. Salvador Cesa et al. / Science of the Total Environment 598 (2017) 1116–1129
2. Plastics in the marine environment
2.1. Origin and distribution
In the marine environment, plastic debris can be from land-based or
sea-based sources. The formers comprehend from litter directly thrown
away in beaches (Andrady, 2011), to material adequately discarded in
uncontrolled landfills (Jambeck et al., 2015). They also include tiny par-
ticles coming from WWTPs that were not specifically designed to retain
them, as it is the case of textile fibers liberated from domestic washings
(Browne et al., 2011), synthetic components of personal care products
(Leslie, 2014) and pellets (GESAMP, 2015b). On the other way, sea-
based sources include intentional or accidental lost of plastic items di-
rectly in this environment, as it is the case of abandoned fishing gear
(Andrady, 2011) and also pellets' spillage (UNEP, 2016). According to
Andrady (2011), land-based sources make up 80% of plastic debris in
the marine environment, while the rest is composed mainly by aquicul-
ture and fishery equipment. Studies related only to mismanaged waste,
which comprehends a land-based source composed by littered or inad-
equately discarded material, point that in 2010, 192 coastal countries
were responsible for values between 4.8 and 12.7 million tonnes enter-
ing the oceans (Jambeck et al., 2015).
When reaching the marine environment, plastic distribution is het-
erogeneous, for many reasons, including winds and local currents,
coastal geography and entrance points in the system, like urban areas
and commercial routes (UNEP, 2016). Debris own characteristics also
influence their position in the water column, although their interaction
with the natural system can alter original behaviors (Thompson et al.,
2009). That is the case of buoyant plastics like polyethylene and poly-
propylene that have a specific gravity smaller than that of the seawater
(Sundt et al., 2014). When fouled by marine organisms they can alter
their original characteristics and sink, reaching the water column and
the ocean bottom (Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012). In this way, according to
the UNEP (2005) report, 70% of marine litter would remain in seabed,
while the rest would be divided between those found in beaches
(15%) and floating in the water (15%). For floating debris, a recent esti-
mate suggested around 5 trillion items or N250,000 tonnes, where sub-
tropical gyres, enclosed seas and areas near to densely populated
regions can be considered hotspots (Eriksen et al., 2014). Textile fibers,
including common polymers like polyester, polyamide and acrylic have
a higher density than that from seawater (Neves et al., 2015; Sundt et
al., 2014), which suggests their participation predominantly in the sea-
bed, a still understudied environment in relation to microplastics
(GESAMP, 2015b, 2016).
2.2. Effects
Some of the actions related to the presence of plastics in the marine
environment are mechanic and comprehend: (1) deposition in the sea-
bed, (2) non-native species proliferation, (3) entanglement and (4) in-
gestion; with more attention from the general public and the media to
the last two ones (Derraik, 2002; Thompson et al., 2009; UNEP, 2016).
When synthetic polymers reach the seabed, they can limit gas exchange
interfering in ecosystems operation (Cole et al., 2011; Moore, 2008).
When transported over long distances, they can proliferate non-native
species like bacteria and some types of algae and invertebrates (UNEP,
2016; Zettler et al., 2013). Regarding entanglement, organisms can be
victims of drowning, suffocation, strangulation and reduction in feeding
activity (Fischer et al., 2015; Li et al., 2016). They can also be responsible
for the phenomenon called ‘ghost fishing’, where organisms are
retained by abandoned or lost fishing nets (Cole et al., 2011). Related
to ingestion, plastics can cause a false sensation of satiation, irritation
and injuries in internal parts of the digestive tract of organisms. It is
also related to impacts on fitness and reproduction (GESAMP, 2016).
The ingestion of tiny particles can further translocate from digestive
tract to circulatory systems of organisms (Browne et al., 2008). In the
particular case of textile fibers, their format can cause knots and ob-
structions that lead to internal damages and prevent egestion (Cole et
al., 2011). Furthermore, in a study with freshwater crustacean Daphnia
magna, Jemec et al. (2016) demonstrated that the ingestion of fibers
b1.4 mm resulted in increased mortality after 48 h, specifically for
those individuals which were not pre-fed with algae. Indeed, regarding
ingestion and its physical effects, GESAMP (2016) alerts to the fact that
studies remain mainly in laboratory perspective, where individuals are
usually submitted to concentrations above those found in the environ-
ment. Thus, issues like time of exposure and dose-response measure-
ments need to be considered when analyzing these impacts.
Regarding chemical effects of microplastics, although synthetic ma-
terials are biochemically inert and do not interact with individuals,
they lead to a different kind of problem: bioavailability of substances
to organisms. Mainly after ingestion, these toxic compounds can reach
cells, interacting with important molecules, causing toxicological conse-
quences like reproductive and development problems in animals such
as mussels, shellfish and fish (Andrady, 2011; Teuten et al., 2009). Al-
though toxic consequences remain partially unknown, especially
above the individual level (GESAMP, 2016), several studies, basically
from laboratory experiments, are dedicated to this theme. That is the
case of Nobre et al. (2015), which demonstrated that exposure to virgin
polyethylene granules, and beach-collected pellets induced toxic ef-
fects, increasing anomalous embryonic development in sea urchins.
Similarly, Browne et al. (2013) exposed marine lugworms to sand
with 5% microplastics presenting both presorbed pollutants and addi-
tives. Effects included reduction of N 60% in the ability to remove patho-
genic bacteria, reduction of N 55% in the ability to engineer sediments
and an increase of N 55% in mortality. Finally, Rochman et al. (2013)
showed that fish fed with contaminated or alternatively virgin polyeth-
ylene fragments presented hepatic stress, including cellular death and
tumors in worst cases.
In fact, there are two possible origins of chemicals present in plastics:
the materials own constitution and the adsorption of toxic substances
from the surrounding environment (GESAMP, 2015b). The first case
comprehends additives like phthalates and nonylphenol, constituent
monomers, as bisphenol A (BPA), and low molecular weight oligomers,
all present in plastics as well as in textiles. The second case depends on
contaminants reaching the environment through air contact, wastewa-
ter effluents and outflows. These substances can be further adsorbed,
according to plastic affinity and the equilibrium between the material
and seawater (GESAMP, 2015b).
When it comes to the potential of toxic pollutants, smaller plastic
particles present a bigger threat as their surface-area-to-volume ratio
is higher than larger pieces (GESAMP, 2015b). Tiny particles, named
microplastics, have origin in several sources, constituting a threat to
the environment also because they are more difficult to detect and are
available to a broader range of organisms (Barnes et al., 2009; Wright
et al., 2013).
3. Microplastics
3.1. Size definition
The first use of the term ‘microplastic’ is unclear (GESAMP, 2015b),
even though it was initially mentioned by Ryan and Moloney (1990)
and later by Thompson et al. (2004). Recently, the subject gained atten-
tion, with massive research being publicized mainly in the last years
(GESAMP, 2015b; Ivar do Sul and Costa, 2014). Either way, many chal-
lenges remain, starting from a formally recognized definition
(GESAMP, 2015b).
Currently, ‘microplastics’ is associated to a classification based on
size, however, there is no general consensus about adopted values,
with relative variation between studies (Cole et al., 2011; Hidalgo-Ruz
et al., 2012). Regarding superior limits, in general, researches accept di-
mensions b20 mm (Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012) and if, in one side, values
 F. Salvador Cesa et al. / Science of the Total Environment 598 (2017) 1116–1129
lower than 1 mm are more intuitive because they refer to the microm-
eter scale, values b5 mm are more commonly used (Claessens et al.,
2013). In fact, this last dimension has been proposed in a workshop
held by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Arthur et
al., 2009) and later adopted by the Joint Group of Experts on the Scien-
tific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP, 2015b) and
the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP, 2016). Even though,
lower limits in these publications remain unclear, especially because
the explanation ‘less than five millimeters’ comprises a wide range of
sizes. Furthermore, it is recognized that different methodologies and
difficulties of sampling lead to different adopted values (Arthur et al.,
2009; GESAMP, 2015b), bringing an urgent need for a standardization
that has not been established yet (Cole et al., 2011; GESAMP, 2015b).
In this sense, Table 1 summarizes some recent studies and their authors'
approaches and proposals, when dealing with size definition and deter-
mination in experimental and field researches.
Still related to microplastic size definition, another non-agreed con-
cept is the dimension (e.g., diameter, width, length) considered for
value limitation (b 5 mm), which is highly dependent on particle
shape. Adoptions vary according to authors, where some precisely de-
scribe the largest dimension of the debris (Dris et al., 2016b; Lee et al.,
2015), others consider the diameter (GESAMP, 2010, 2015a; Napper
and Thompson, 2016; UNEP, 2016) and others do not specify which
side is attributed (GESAMP, 2015b; Arthur et al., 2009). Evidently this
discussion would be irrelevant for spherical forms such as pellets
where diameter and largest dimension coincide. On the other hand,
when talking about non-beady shapes, not mentioning which side is re-
ferred or alternatively considering different sides would lead to misun-
derstanding and confusion. In the textile fibers case, for example, cross
sections usually do not surpass some micrometers, while their length
starts at the millimeter scale (Needles, 1986). Considering either the
largest dimension or the ‘diameter’ would be crucial in this case, be-
cause they lead to different estimates of microplastic abundance.
3.2. Origin
Beyond size, microplastics are usually catalogued according to their
origin, whether primary or secondary. Borrowing terminology from at-
mospheric science, Arthur et al. (2009) defined primary microplastics as
those intentionally produced in minimal dimensions, for direct use or as
precursors of other products. Secondary microplastics, on the other
hand, are formed in the environment, especially the marine one, by
the degradation of larger pieces. According to Sundt et al. (2014) this
conceptualization is aligned to the classical definition of general
pollution, where primary sources are new emissions, usually of
manufactured origin and secondary ones are defined as pollutants pres-
ent in the environment, being moved around and reinserted. Still ac-
cording to these authors, there is a confusion of some publications
that use the term secondary microplastics for all manufactured pieces
with the exception of those designed in micro dimensions. Some
works, for example, include fibers spread from domestic washings as
secondary debris because they fragment after use. However, according
to Sundt et al. (2014) it is more adequate to classify them as primary
sources since they were introduced by society in the start of the pipe
and their emissions are a result of materials fragmented by humans, be-
fore entering the environment. After, in the sea, these fibers may be de-
graded and produce smaller particles, which would be classified as
secondary microplastics. Either way, Browne (2015) defends that the
adjectives ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ can confound government, industry
and the public in general, suggesting that microplastics should be clas-
sified according to their emission source.
Although it is already recognized that production, usage and dispos-
al of products can be contributors of microplastic pollution, robust esti-
mates regarding absolute quantities and regional differences of each
source remain unknown (UNEP, 2016). It is however, of some consen-
sus, that larger debris with potential of degrading in smaller pieces
1119
surpasses mass weight of smaller debris (Sundt et al., 2014; Eriksen et
al., 2014), while microplastics usually account for a higher numerical
abundance (Browne et al., 2010; Eriksen et al., 2014). In this sense, com-
parisons of quantities between larger debris and microplastics must
consider both units.
Emission sources vary with different products sectors. They compre-
hend from styrofoam, packaging and bags, which make up the major
parcel in worldwide plastic production (Kang et al., 2015; Lee et al.,
2015; UNEP, 2016) to the inconspicuous components in personal care
hygiene products (Leslie, 2014) and abrasive blasting media (Cole et
al., 2011). They also include larger sized microplastics as pellets,
which are small plastic resins used in manufacture (Turra et al., 2014).
These and other sources are studied by several authors, which face sim-
ilar challenges regarding their knowledge (e.g., representativeness, dis-
tribution in the marine environment, and intervention points). As it is
beyond the scope of this paper, these will not be discussed here. Other-
wise, from now on, textile fibers, as an urgent issue (Ziajahromi et al.,
2017) and less explored source (Napper and Thompson, 2016) will be
the focus.
4. Textile fibers
4.1. Fibers' toxicity
Although the textile industry is by far recognized as one of the main
polluters on earth (Bruce et al., 2016; Greenpeace International, 2011),
the subject of microplastics in this area has not been discussed until
some environmental scientist put light on it. In this way, effects related
to the presence of synthetic fibers in natural habitats are usually
approached through the microplastic general context, where, in those
cases, impacts relate to all types of small plastic debris (see Section
2.2.) and particularities regarding the textile industry are scarce.
The extended list of chemicals used during manufacture is recog-
nized regarding textiles toxicity, mainly in wet processes (Bruce et al.,
2016). This includes pesticides, monomers, additives, solvents and dye-
stuffs (Browne et al., 2011; Bruce et al., 2016; Luongo, 2015) that subdi-
vide in a vast group of substances. According to the Swedish Chemical
Agency (1997) it is estimated that just for dyeing and printing over
10,000 components can be part in the process, although not all can be
considered toxic. These chemicals are applied for preservation, finishing
and coloring and, despite being released in production phases, can be
lost during use and wear or even during washing (Brigden et al., 2012;
Dave and Aspegren, 2010; Luongo, 2015). Brigden et al. (2012), for ex-
ample, demonstrated washing release for Nonylphenol ethoxylates, a
group of chemicals used during textiles as surfactants and detergents.
According to these authors, in contact with water, these products
break down forming nonylphenol, a persistent bioaccumulative and
toxic substance. From 78 common textile articles purchased in several
countries, two thirds tested positive for the presence of Nonylphenol
ethoxylates, where, after standard washing, all positive samples had a
decrease in the substances concentration, suggesting release during
laundering (Brigden et al., 2012).
In the specific case of microplastics, toxic substances from textile in-
dustry can become a threat because they participate in the material own
constitution and also can be sorbed from surrounding water, e.g. waste-
water and the marine environment (Bruce et al., 2016). Once in contact
with organisms, these chemicals cause toxicological consequences such
as those reported by several authors. Avagyan et al. (2015), for example,
found concentrations of Benzothiazole, Benzotriazole and its derivates
in polyester clothing. With functions such as biocides, fungicides and
stabilizers to prevent yellowing, those substances are known to cause
allergenic skin reactions and dermatitis in humans and low acute mam-
malian toxicity (Avagyan et al., 2015). Related to azo dyes applied for
yellow, orange and red coloring, carcinogenesis has already been ad-
dressed (Luongo, 2015). Furthermore, perfluorinated chemicals such
as those applied for water and oil repellency as well as used as solvents

Table 1
Classification of microplastic (MP) size in recent studies.
Reference
Bruce et al. (2016)
Claessens et al. (2011)
De Witte et al. (2014)
Desforges et al. (2014)
Devriese et al. (2015)
Li et al. (2015)
Lusher et al. (2012)
Lusher et al. (2015)
Napper and Thompson (2016)
Pirc et al. (2016)
Sutton et al. (2016)
Zhao et al. (2016)
a
Average values. b The authors utilized a 25 μm pore size for fiber filtration. This value allows any fiber with a length ≥ 25 μm to be retained, because in fiber filtration, it is the length (main size) the responsible for retention, not the diameter
(minimum size). That explains why diameters under 25 μm where reported. c Although fish collection was not intended in research objectives, after accidentally catching nine of them, microplastics were analyzed and reported. d No maxi-
mum values reported.
1120
Objective Type of research MPs shapes MPs definition (μm) Collected MPs size Size limitation due to
range (μm)
Quantify fibers spread from Laboratory Fiber b5000 (diameter) 20 to 5000 (length) Filter pore size (minimum value) and microplastic
synthetic jackets during domestic experiments definition (maximum)
washings
Investigate microplastics in Field collections Fiber, film, granule, spherule ≤1000 38 to 1000 Filter pore size (minimum value) and microplastic
Belgian marine sediments definition (maximum)
(harbors, beaches and sublitoral
areas)
F. Salvador Cesa et al. / Science of the Total Environment 598 (2017) 1116–1129
Assess qualitatively microplastics Field collections Fiber, film, fragment, spherule b5000 200 to 1500 Animal ingestion
in consumption and wild mussels
from Belgian sites
Document microplastics in Field collections Fiber, fragment 333 to b5000 62 to 5810 Filter pore size (both minimum and maximum
subsurface waters (4.5 m depth) value)
of Pacific Ocean and British
Columbia
Assess the consumption of Field collections Fiber, fragment, film, spherule b5000 20 to 1000 Filter pore size (minimum value) and airborne
microplastics in brown shrimp fibers contamination (maximum)
populations from coastal waters
of North Sea and Channel Area
Investigate microplastics Field collections Multiple types, including b5000 5 to 5000 Filter pore size (minimum value) and animal
pollution in commercial bivalves fiber, fragment, pellet ingestion (maximum)
from a fishery Market in China
Document microplastics in fishes Field collections Bead, fiber, film, fragment b5000 130 to 14300 Animal ingestion
from the English Channel
Document microplastics in surface Field collections Fiber, film, fragment b5000 250 to 7710 Filter pore size (minimum value) and not specified
(top 16 cm) and subsurface (6 m (maximum)
depth) artic waters in Norway
Examine the release of fibers from Laboratory Fiber b5000 (smallest dimension) 11.91 to 17.74 (diameter)a Filter pore size (both minimum and maximum
synthetic fabrics during domestic experiments 4990 to 7790 (length)a value in length)b
washings
Examine the emission of fibers Laboratory Fiber b5000 300 to 25,000 (length) Filter pore size and fibers that could be
from domestic washing of a experiments disentangled for measurement (both minimum
synthetic fleece and maximum value)
Characterize microplastics in Field collections Fiber, film, foam, b5000 ≥125d Filter pore size (minimum value)
treated wastewater effluent and fragment, pellet
urban estuary of San Francisco
Bayc
Address microscopic Field collections Fiber, fragment b5000 500 to 8500 Animal ingestion
anthropogenic particle
contamination in terrestrial birds
from China
 F. Salvador Cesa et al. / Science of the Total Environment 598 (2017) 1116–1129
and surfactants were shown to persist in the body of animals such as
amphibians, fish, birds and mammals (Greenpeace, 2011).
Although global textile industry produces some efforts in order to re-
strict or ban these hazardous substances, this is not a reality for all coun-
tries, especially those in Southern Hemisphere (Brigden et al., 2012;
Greenpeace, 2011). Lacking information regarding a variety of available
substances, allied to missing legislation (Bruce et al., 2016), inspection
and poor responsibility from manufacturers (Brigden et al., 2012) ag-
gravates the situation. This implies not just in the need for new research,
but also on global players, including the government, industries and
parties to be aware and take responsibility in the process. Thus, this sub-
ject should be considered in next studies.
4.2. Fibers in microplastic context
Currently, in field researches, fibers as microplastics are registered in
diverse habitats, including remote locals, like polar glaciers (Obbard et
al., 2014). There are records of ingestion by marine species like fish
from different depths (Cartes et al., 2016; Lusher et al., 2012; Neves et
al., 2015; Rochman et al., 2015), shrimps (Devriese et al., 2015), crayfish
(Welden and Cowie, 2016) and mussels (De Witte et al., 2014; Li et al.,
2015, 2016; Mathalon and Hill, 2014). As a predominant shape of
microplastics in the marine environment, fibers were detected in
beaches and mangrove sediments (Thompson et al., 2004; Browne et
al., 2010; Nel and Froneman, 2015; Nor and Obbard, 2014), subtidal sed-
iments (Frias et al., 2016; Thompson et al., 2004), surface and sub-sur-
face waters (Dubaish and Liebezeit, 2013; Cole et al., 2014; Desforges
et al., 2014; Lusher et al., 2014; Lusher et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2014)
and sedimentary deep-sea habitats (Fischer et al., 2015; Woodall et al.,
2014). In this sense, Table 2 summarizes microplastics concentrations
in works where fibers were dominant. Although the evidence presented
above, GESAMP (2015b) alerts to the fact that fibrous formats are more
easily detected than others shapes, which could suggest an overestima-
tion of textile microplastics over other types.
In visual or microscopic selection, fibers can be catalogued as thin or
fibrous materials (Cole et al., 2014; Free et al., 2014) that present an
equally thickness throughout its entire length (Hidalgo-Ruz et al.,
2012; Zhao et al., 2016). External forces, as those suffered by the fiber
during manufacturing process (e.g., twisting in yarn formation) can
alter cross section uniformity (Mogahzy, 2009). This suggests that, rely-
ing only on their main characteristic (length-thickness ratio), should be
the best option. Still regarding fibers form, as their main dimension is
the length and aware of the fact that their cross sections can assume di-
verse shapes than not the circular one (e.g., trilobal, ribbon, L-shaped)
(Mogahzy, 2009), we highly recommend the adoption of this main
size (length) for limits regarding microplastics (b5 mm) and other clas-
ses definition, like nano, meso, macro and mega-plastics (GESAMP,
2015b). This would solve, at least, part of the methodology differences
between studies (see Section 3.1).
When talking about polymer identification, another particularity re-
garding textiles is the consideration of artificial fibers as participants of
microplastic pollution. This condition is highlighted by authors such as
Remy et al. (2015) and Wesch et al. (2016) which alert to the fact that
fibers present in the environment are not always made from plastic
and that the lack of physical-chemical characterizations can lead to a
false estimative of microplastics in some publications. This is the case
of studies that consider artificial fibers like viscose (Frias et al., 2016;
Lusher et al., 2012, 2015; Neves et al., 2015; Obbard et al., 2014;
Woodall et al., 2014) and cellulose acetate (Wright et al., 2015) as
part, sometimes the predominant one, of synthetic litter. According to
textile context, synthetic and artificial materials are both manmade fi-
bers, but of different origins. Apart from natural fibers, which are
those found directly in nature, manmade are characterized by human
interference in material formation (Fig. 1). This formation can be obtain-
ed both from regenerated polymers, as it is the case of artificial fibers, or
can be generated by the synthesis of mainly petroleum substances,
1121
giving synthetic fibers (Needles, 1986). Thus, only synthetic textiles
could be considered plastic.
This differentiation is further confirmed by McIntyre (2005), which
mentions that International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ex-
cludes from synthetic fibers definition the artificial ones. Related to
the risks of the latter, despite cellulose is biodegradable, toxic additives
and dyes can be part of their constitution (see Section 4.1), which indi-
cates that metabolizing these substances is faster for artificial than it is
for synthetic materials (Remy et al., 2015; Wright et al., 2015; Yu et
al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2016).
A further notable remark regarding textile fibers as microplastics, is
the use of the term ‘microfibers’ as its synonym. In the textile industry
where the definition is older, microfiber refers to a measure unit that re-
lates to mass per unit length (Mcintyre, 2005), where the material is
usually thinner than a thread of hair, with a common cross section of
b10 μm (Lewin, 2007). In this way, the term ‘microfibers’ in environ-
mental sciences is detrimental according to its use, more antique, dif-
fuse and with another meaning, in the textile industry. For this reason,
we highly recommend the avoidance of ‘microfibers’ term when refer-
ring to fibers under microplastic definition.
Finally, facing the plural aspects that fibers can assume, being aware
that there are unsolved gaps regarding their definition as microplastics,
we call for a unique term conceptualizing this kind of debris. This solu-
tion would deal with a standard perspective that would work for both
areas, enabling not just more clear results, but comparisons between
studies. Furthermore, in order to better comprehend microplastic pollu-
tion, what is observed in the field must be combined to potential
sources (Sundt et al., 2014).
4.3. Fibers' sources
Synthetic fibers are currently responsible for N60% of world fiber
consumption, with polyester, polyamide, acrylic and polyolefin being
the most common (FAO-ICAC, 2013; Oerlikon, 2010). Their manufactur-
ing process starts when polymers constituted of free macromolecules
are forced by little orifices and then solidified (McIntyre, 2005). After
fiber formation, which can be maintained in continuous form, named
filament, or discontinuous one, named staple fiber, the material can be
processed into several products that mainly comprehend yarns, braid-
ings, knitting and woven fabrics or alternatively, nonwovens
(Mogahzy, 2009). These products can assume several characteristics,
suiting a range of textile applications that include sportswear, agricul-
ture and medical and protection application (Mogahzy, 2009). Although
not exhausted here, it is important to consider that all textile products,
in either life cycle phase, have the potential to become a microplastic
pollutant.
4.3.1. Fibers degraded in external environment
Regarding what was found in literature, it is known that plastic
products surpassing the five-millimeter scale and reaching the environ-
ment can further degrade, potentially becoming microplastics. That is
the case of fishery and aquaculture equipment, sanitary products and
geotextiles that will be briefly cited as beyond the scope of this work.
Due to aquaculture and fishery equipment, according to Andrady
(2011), almost the whole global fishing activities use synthetic mate-
rials as polyamide and polyolefin, where some of the most common
lost or discarded objects, constituted of textile fibers, comprehend
ropes, lines and fishing nets (Cole et al., 2011; Sundt et al., 2014). Al-
though data is scarce, it is estimated that, since the 80′s, more than eigh-
teen thousand equipment of this kind were removed from water,
totalizing 500 km just in Norway (Sundt et al., 2014).
When talking about sanitary products composed of textile nonwo-
vens, like female hygiene products and diapers (Browne et al., 2010;
Morritt et al., 2014; Sundt et al., 2014), it is known that they are com-
monly found in sewage treatment plants. According to a French study,
around 70% of the objects retained in sewage filters were composed
 1122
Table 2
Concentration of microplastics (MPs) in field samples where textile fibers were considered dominant.

Reference Sample MPs definition MPs size range MPs shapes Concentration range Concentration Unit Fiber MPs chemical
(μm) (μm) average (%) identification

Cole et al. (2014) Subsurface waters from western b5000 (diameter) 6 to 175 (diameter) Bead, fiber, planar 0.24 to 0.27 0.26 (site 1) item m−3 61 Yes
English Channel N250 (length) fragment, granular 0.27 to 0.35 0.31 (site 2) item m−3
333 to b5000 particles m−3

F. Salvador Cesa et al. / Science of the Total Environment 598 (2017) 1116–1129
Desforges et al. (2014) Subsurface seawater from 64.8 to 5810 Fiber fragment 8.51 to 9180 2080 ± 2190 75 No
northeastern Pacific Ocean
Dubaish and Surface and subsurface waters b5000 b100 to 1000a Fiber, granular particle 0 to 1770 64 ± 194 granules L−1 N50 No
Liebezeit (2013) from North Sea (Germany) 0 to 650 88 ± 82 fibers L−1
Fischer et al. (2015) Depth sea sediments from b1000 ~300 (majority) Fiber, paint chip, 60 to 2020 Not specified piece m−2 75 No
northwest Pacific Ocean small cracked piece
−1
Frias et al. (2016) Coastal sediments from Southern Not specified b500 Fiber, fragment 0 to 0.2628 0.01 ± 0.001 MPs g ~80 Yesb
Portuguese water
Lusher et al. (2014) Subsurface waters in northeast b5000 (length) 200 to 43,200 Bead, fiber, foam, 0 to 22.5 2.46 ± 2.43 particles m−3 95.9 Yesc
Atlantic Ocean fragment
Lusher et al. (2015) Surface and subsurface Artic b5000 250 to 7710 Fiber, film, fragment 0 to 1.31d 0.34 ± 0.31d particles m−3 95 Yesb
waters from Norway 0 to 11.5e 2.68 ± 2.95e particles m−3
Nel and Froneman (2015) Beach sediments and surf-zone b5000 65 to 5000f Fiber, fragment 689 ± 348 to Not specified particles m−2 N90 No
water 80 to 5000g 3308 ± 1449f particles m−3
from southeastern coastline of 258 ± 53 to
South Africa 1215 ± 277g
Nor and Obbard (2014) Mangrove coastal sediments from b5000 b20 (majority) Fiber, film, granule 12.0 ± 8.0 to 36.8 ± 23.6 particle kg−1 of dry 72 Yes
Singapore 62.7 ± 27.2 sediment
Obbard et al. (2014) Artic Sea ice b5000 (diameter) ≤2000 (fiber length) Chip, fiber, other 38 to 234 Not specified particles m−3 ≥54 Yesb
b200 (chips, other)
Thompson et al. (2004) Sandy, estuarine and subtidal Not specified ~20 (diameter) Fiber, fragment Not specified b1h fiber 50 mL−1 N50 Yes
sediments b3i
around Plymouth (UK) b7j
Woodall et al. (2014) Deep sea sediments from Atlantic Not specified 2000 to 3000 (length) Fiber 1.4 to 40 13.4 ± 3.5 piece 50 mL−1 100 Yesb
and b100 (diameter)
Indian Ocean and Mediterranean
Sea
Zhao et al. (2014) Surface water of the Yangtze b5000 N500 to 5000 Fiber, film, granule, 500 to 10,200k 4137 ± 2461.5k n m−3 79.1k No
Estuary system (China) spherule 0.030 to 0.455l 0.167 ± 0.138l n m−3 83.2l
a
Longer fibers were occasionally found. b Rayon (artificial man-made fiber) was identified and considered in results. cRayon (artificial man-made fiber) was identified but removed from final count. d
Surface samples. e
Subsurface
samples. f Beach. g Water column. h Sandy. i Estuarine. j Subtidal. k Yangtze Estuary. l Coastal waters of east China sea.
 F. Salvador Cesa et al. / Science of the Total Environment 598 (2017) 1116–1129
Fig. 1. Classification of textile fibers: sources and examples. In italics, the only group of fibers which can be considered microplastics.
Source: Adapted from ABNT NBR 12744 (1992).
by sanitary textiles, partially made of synthetic fibers (Hyaric et al.,
2009). Although retained in filters, these materials can be liberated in
case of incidents in WWTPs or extraordinary events from storm waters
(Sundt et al., 2014). Considering that regular emissions of non-treated
sewage in places like Norway are around 3% (Sundt et al., 2014), in con-
trast, just b 50% of wastewater is treated in Brazil (Brazil, 2016), emis-
sion perspectives, especially in countries with less infrastructure, take
alarming proportions.
The last category treated here as textile synthetic items that can fur-
ther degrade in the environment is the geotextiles' group, which com-
prehends a vast field of products normally related to engineering.
According to Wiewel and Lamoree (2016), their common use is in the
soil related to functions of drainage, separation, filtration, reinforcement
and protection. Basically made of nonwovens composed of polyolefin,
polyester (Mogahzy, 2009) and, in a fewer scale, polyamide, these tex-
tiles are designed to resist, but according to environmental condition,
may degrade into smaller pieces (Wiewel and Lamoree, 2016). Esti-
mates related to this kind of pollution were not available, but consider-
ing its representativeness in civil and environment engineering,
including coastal structures, it has to be further explored.
4.3.2. Fibers degraded in internal environments
Beyond the already described degradation of textile materials above
5 mm directly in the environment, it is known that textile microplastics
are emitted in shorter dimensions from sources like dust, apparel and
home textiles maintenance. Browne (2015) still suggests that industry
productive processes are part of this kind of emission. However, data
specifically treating this microplastic source is still not available.
Due to dust, studies about air quality show the presence of fibers, es-
pecially in internal environments (Dris et al., 2016b) derived from ap-
parel articles, curtain, carpets and others. These particles removed by
cleaning actions or when scrubbed, are released in sewage effluents or
directly transported by air, dissipating to external areas (Dris et al.,
2016a; Macher, 2001; Sundt et al., 2014; Webster et al., 2009).
On the other hand, processes related to care maintenance have more
potential of emission and can either be domestic or commercial. The for-
mer basically consists of washing and drying; the latter also includes
dry-cleaning, being less practical, more expensive and for this reason,
less used (Varjonen and Aalto, 2006). Drying and dry-cleaning are pro-
cedures that do not use water and can be a source of microplastics by air
effluents or alternatively when waste coming from filters is not correct-
ly discarded (Sundt et al., 2014). Textile washings, which also happen in
commercial laundries, can also generate pollution related to filters
waste. What passes through them (washing effluent) should be direct-
ed to WWTPs. In these cases, water should be adequately treated, to be
1123
then released in watercourses. Even though, recent studies show that
filtration systems from WWTPs are not enough to retain fiber pollution.
4.4. Fibers in WWTPs
Recently, the number of publications dedicated to study micro-
plastics in sewage treatment plants has largely risen, probably related
to discoveries putting these systems as intermediaries of fibers and
other shapes, to water environments. In terms of available treatments,
there is a general consensus that current technology retains the major
part of microplastics, where fibers appear to remain mainly in primary
sedimentation (Carr et al., 2016; Magnusson and Noren, 2014; Talvitie
and Heinonen, 2014; Talvitie et al., 2015; Ziajahromi et al., 2017).
Regarding the just mentioned stage, microplastics become potential
environmental polluters since sludge products can be further used as
soil fertilizer (Bayo et al., 2016; Dris et al., 2015). In this way, Mintenig
et al. (2017) reported concentrations of synthetic particles with
b500 μm in sewage sludge from Germany WWTPs reaching up to 24
particles g−1 of dry weight (dw). Magnusson and Noren (2014) verified
similar values with 16.7 ± 1.96 microplastics g−1 dw for a Swedish
WWTP, where sewage sludge particles were equal or larger to
300 μm. Further extending these analyses to North American sludge
products and soil were those were applied, Zubris and Richards
(2005) reported concentrations from around 1.5 to b5.0 fibers g−1 dw
for by-products and 0.08 to 1.21 fibers g−1 dw in soil arrays. These au-
thors also demonstrated that fibers applied in land maintain their orig-
inal characteristics, i.e. color, size, shape (Habib et al., 1998), even after
long periods of exposure into the soil (Zubris and Richards, 2005).
What passes through primary sedimentation can be removed in fur-
ther treatment steps, although even advanced filtering processes do not
deplete microplastics (Ziajahromi et al., 2017). Considering diverse mu-
nicipal treatments differences, WWTPs can retain up to 99.9% of syn-
thetic particles (Carr et al., 2016), with common efficiencies values
reported above 80%. That is the case of a Swedish WWTP (efficiency
N99%; incoming water = 15 microplastics L−1; treated effluent =
0.008 microplastics L− 1) (Magnusson and Noren, 2014); a Russian
WWTP (efficiency N 96%; incoming water = 627 microplastics L−1;
treated effluent = 23 microplastics L− 1) (Talvitie and Heinonen,
2014); and a French WWTP (efficiency from 83 to 95%; incoming
water = 260 to 320 microplastics L− 1; treated effluent = 14 to 50
microplastics L−1) (Dris et al., 2015). Although usual effluents concen-
trations do not surpass 20 particles L−1 (Browne et al., 2011; Mintenig
et al., 2017; Sutton et al., 2016; Talvitie and Heinonen, 2014; Talvitie
et al., 2015; Ziajahromi et al., 2017), temporal discharges highlight the
importance of these systems as a microplastics pathway into the envi-
ronment. Sutton et al. (2016), for example, reported 56 million particles
1124 F. Salvador Cesa et al. / Science of the Total Environment 598 (2017) 1116–1129
per day (≥125 μm) emitted collectively in eight WWTPs of San Francisco
Bay (USA). Still on a daily basis, for just one Australian WWTP,
Ziajahromi et al. (2017) reported values up to 460 million particles
per day (from 60 μm to 500 μm). Regarding one-year period, in a Ger-
man WWTP, Mintenig et al. (2017) estimated microplastics to reach
up to 5 trillion particles (b500 μm). As a consequence, receiving water
bodies present microplastics in some extent. That is suggested, for ex-
ample, by Talvitie et al. (2015), which pointed that microplastics in Hel-
sinki Archipelago (Finland), ranging from 0.01 to 0.65 fibers L−1 and 0.5
to 9.4 synthetic particles L−1, were probably originated from nearby
WWTPs. Similarly, Magnusson and Noren (2014), compared Swedish
WWTPs effluent plumes (1.1 to 1.8 particles m−3) and reference sites
(0.45 particles m−3) and suggested the same relationship.
When comparing fibers to other shapes of microplastics present in
WWTPs, the formers are commonly reported as dominants
(Magnusson and Noren, 2014; Mintenig et al., 2017; Sutton et al.,
2016; Talvitie and Heinonen, 2014; Ziajahromi et al., 2017). In this
sense, it is necessary to consider that some studies did not perform qual-
itative analyses possibly leading to some overestimation in
microplastics concentrations (see Section 4.2). For those performing
chemical analyses, synthetic fibers were mainly composed of polyester,
followed by acrylic, polyamide and polypropylene (Browne et al., 2011;
Mintenig et al., 2017; Ziajahromi et al., 2017), where natural particu-
lates were also identified (Mintenig et al., 2017; Ziajahromi et al., 2017).
Although data presented until know have to be considered conser-
vatively, due to differences in methodologies (e.g., mesh filters sizes,
chemical analyses) and seasonal variation of water fluxes, it is possible
to conclude that WWTPs act as entrance routes of microplastics to the
environment. In this sense, relying only on this treatment as a mitiga-
tion measure is not enough even because countries with lower infra-
structure do not collect and treat most part of its wastewater (UNEP,
2016). Other intermediary options, like cleaning operations which con-
sist in actions to remove waste mainly from coastlines and the sea, re-
main costly (Sundt et al., 2014; GESAMP, 2010) and in the case of
microplastics almost ineffective (Jambeck et al., 2015). That condition
brings into the necessity of exploring this type of pollution from the
source. In the case of fibers spread from domestic washings, the main
scope of this work, it is related to understanding laundry parameters
and textiles characteristics orchestrated by consumption habits.
5. Domestic textile washings
The first study of environmental sciences dedicated to explore do-
mestic textile washings as one possible source of microplastics was pub-
lished by Browne et al. (2011). Since then, a few reports with washing
machine experiments were produced (Bruce et al., 2016; Dubaish and
Liebezeit, 2013; Hartline et al., 2016; Karlsson, 2015; Mermaids, 2016;
Napper and Thompson, 2016; Petersson and Roslund, 2015; Pirc et al.,
2016). These studies were mainly elaborated by environmental scien-
tists, where researches try to reveal the factors involved in fiber emis-
sion as well as quantities released per washing. Although some
advances, evidences show that, up to date, there are as many factors
as consumer options involved in the process. This brings, again, to the
necessity of interconnecting areas in order to understand critical points
that can reveal feasible solutions. Facing this, we propose an overview
across global estimates related to washing habits as well as understand-
ing the dynamics involved in laundering processes. Finally we suggest
some laundry parameters as well as textile article characteristics that
could be considered in future studies in order to clarify factors influenc-
ing fiber emission.
5.1. Global estimates and consumption habits
Textile washings, either done by hand or in washing machines, are
important parts of daily domestic activities and hardly influenced by so-
cial, cultural and moral issues. In developing countries like Brazil, India
and China, hand washing is more common and present in at least 30%
of residences, although projections suggest a growth in machines acqui-
sition and usage in a near future (Amberg, 2014; Pakula and
Stamminger, 2015). For developed countries, in general, N95% of resi-
dences is equipped with automatic machines, reaching up to 100% in
places like Korea (Amberg, 2014; Laitala et al., 2011; Pakula and
Stamminger, 2010, 2015).
Around the globe it is presumed to exist N 840 million domestic
washing machines, that consume annually around 20 km3 of water
and 100 TWh of energy, with high variability in models and conditions
of operation (Barthel and Gotz, 2013; Mac Namara et al., 2012; Pakula
and Stamminger, 2010). That includes differences like axis direction
(Pakula and Stamminger, 2010, 2015; Watt et al., 2007), cycle duration
and temperature (Maluf and Kolbe, 2003). Domestic washing machines
models with high efficient labels are growing in consumption and can
generate both economy of resources and preservation of textile articles
(Laitala et al., 2011), but they are not being evaluated in relation to the
potential to generate fibers.
Beyond machines technology, the behaviors of consumers effective-
ly impact in resources usage, with a huge variation between countries
and a lack of data and records in continents like Africa and Central and
South Americas (Pakula and Stamminger, 2010). Available studies indi-
cate that part of domestic washings occurs exclusively per habit, with-
out investigation of dirt grade, where in Europe, 3 to 5 cycles are
estimated per week (Faberi et al., 2007; Kruschwitz et al., 2014;
Laitala et al., 2011; Pakula and Stamminger, 2010). Similarly, studies
show that washing machines are frequently filled with b75% of their ca-
pacity, with the average European carriage between 3 and 4 kg
(Kruschwitz et al., 2014; Pakula and Stamminger, 2010). In this way,
care label treatments should complicate consumers' economy because
they stimulate more groups of laundering in different conditions
(Pakula and Stamminger, 2015). Regarding washing temperature,
even if some specialists recommend one cycle per month at 60 °C to
avoid biofilms formation, it is known that temperatures close to 30 °C
allow effective soil removal, in part due to the development and use of
new detergents (Amberg, 2014) . Even if in places like Europe the aver-
age temperature is beyond recommendation (45.8 °C), campaigns are
generating positive changes in the general population (Faberi et al.,
2007; Kruschwitz et al., 2014; Laitala et al., 2011; Shove, 2003).
Facing the plural options regarding available technologies and con-
sumers' preferences, which still lack data especially in non-developed
countries, we suggest future studies to map both present and future ten-
dencies. These would lead to better estimates of microplastics pollution,
as well as bring to light options of what should be considered, regarding
machine model and consumer operations, in fiber emission.
5.2. Dynamics involved in laundering processes
In a study related to dynamic movement of domestic laundry ma-
chines with horizontal axis, Mac Namara et al. (2012) indicate that
cleaning performance is a result of a process with multiple scales and
phases. Diverse physical phenomena, that affect mass transference in
textiles, combined to chemical actions of detergents, allow dirt release
and suspension in the washing liquid. This liberation occurs by mechan-
ical, chemical or both actions. However, its transference to the outer
part of the textile article is a result of the kinetic energy of water flow
that passes throughout the article, process that is achieved through
tumble rotation and article agitation. Considering a common textile as
a tridimensional structure, consisting of larger pores between yarns
and smaller pores between fibers (Fig. 2) the mass transference inside
the article is governed by a relatively rapid convection of water flux
(Van den Brekel, 1987). The actions suffered by the article that will be
cleaned are deformation, expansion and compression allowing the dif-
fusion of water and effective dust removal (Warmoeskerken et al.,
2002). Textile article characteristics determine the cleaning
 F. Salvador Cesa et al. / Science of the Total Environment 598 (2017) 1116–1129 1125

Source: Adapted from Mac Namara et al. (2012).

Fig. 2. Structure scheme of a textile article and the resulting pores between yarns and fibers.
Source: Adapted from Mac Namara et al. (2012).

effectiveness and washing dynamics influence article characteristics in a
post-washing condition (St Laurent et al., 2007).
Both mechanical and chemical actions during washing attach reac-
tive fibers groups, weakening fibers' structure, with a progressive dam-
age in the molecular chain and a reduction in degree of polymerization
(DP) (Goynes and Rollins, 1971; Maluf and Kolbe, 2003; St Laurent et al.,
2007). Examples with cotton and silk fibers show that, when they are
wet, tumescence facilitates fibrils (smaller molecular structures) to be
released by physical forces (Goynes and Rollins, 1971; Maluf and
Kolbe, 2003; Van Amber et al., 2010). In these cases, the higher the con-
tact between the textile article and the water, the more intense the deg-
radation (Maluf and Kolbe, 2003). Although data regarding synthetic
fibers were not found, presumably they will be less affected by tumes-
cence, as they are mainly hydrophobic (Mcintyre, 2005). For all kinds
of fibers, temperature may have an important role in fabric degradation.
In cases where the bath temperature is higher than 70 °C, the equivalent
to the majority of transition temperatures, it is possible to occur irre-
versible transformations in the material and, therefore, greater injury
to its structure (Laitala et al., 2011; St Laurent et al., 2007). Compiling in-
formation presented until know, it is possible to conclude that fiber
weakening/emission depends on factors related to washing machine
model, consumer operation or both (Fig. 3). Furthermore, these vari-
ables will directly act on textile structure and form fibers that will be re-
leased to the environment. In this sense, we bring to date what was
published until the moment.
6. Domestic washings and microplastic pollution
As previously commented (Section 5), in a precursor study about fi-
bers as marine environment pollutants, Browne et al. (2011) detected
that the individual washing of a textile article can spread N1900
microplastics (defined for those author as b 1 mm). This study utilized
three textile models of 100% polyester (shirt, blanket and fleece, a
kind of article with low pilous surface) in three washing machines of
horizontal axis, with cycles at 40 °C, 600 R.P.M. (rotations per minute),
without the use of detergents or softeners. They concluded that articles
like fleece spread 180% more fibers when compared to the other types,
but called for further studies, including the investigation of detergents
and softeners interference.
A posterior material revealed by Mermaids (2016) as part of LIFE
program, sponsored by European Union, suggested numbers of fibers
emitted from polyester fleeces starting from 114,000 and reaching up

Fig. 3. Factors influencing fibers weakening and emission according to their relation to machine model, consumer operation or both.
1126 F. Salvador Cesa et al. / Science of the Total Environment 598 (2017) 1116–1129
to 2,283,000 in each individual washing. Although the size of released
fibers was not described, the variation between estimates was attribut-
ed to article and washing characteristics, where the use of detergent
lead to higher emission values (Mermaids, 2016).
Similarly, Hartline et al. (2016) defined that both machine model and
textile type could influence fiber releasing. In a comparison between five
jackets of different synthetic compositions, the article with an insulation
part significantly spread more mass of fibers when compared to a fleece
article. Due to the machine model, a top-load type was responsible for an
increase of 430% in the mass of fibers released when compared to a front-
load type. Although Hartline et al. (2016) did not explore the character-
istics in the jackets, they suggested some factors in the top-load machine
that could influence fiber liberation. Beyond the presence of a central ag-
itator that could lead to more mechanical action, top-load model had a
higher cycle duration and water consumption, which could explain fi-
bers weakening (Hartline et al., 2016).
In an analogue study, Napper and Thompson (2016) utilized three
pieces of jumpers (20 × 20 cm), made respectively in 100% polyester,
100% acrylic and 65% polyester/35% cotton. They performed washings
varying temperature (30 °C and 40 °C), detergent (absent, bio-detergent
present, non bio-detergent present) and conditioner (absent, present).
Recording data from the fifth wash, where fiber emission stabilizes,
they concluded that, although intrinsic relationships between laundry
parameters, with a tendency of lower emissions where detergent was
absent or bio-detergent was used, polyester-cotton blends were re-
sponsible for less emissions in all conditions. According to these authors,
cotton fibers have an inferior tensile strength, which could lead to more
fibers being released, but polyester works as an anchor maintaining
them in the textile ground. Although the evidence, other expected re-
sults, such as the influence of conditioner to lubricate fibers did not
lead to higher emission, which suggests further need of experiments.
Pirc et al. (2016) also tried to explain detergent and conditioner in-
fluence in a polyester fleece washing, finding no significant change
when any of these products were used. On the other side, they showed
that fleece fibers, which were thicker than the textile ground ones, were
mainly liberated. These authors also performed ten succeeded washings
to record temporal changes. According to their results, the percentage of
mass of fibers released significantly decreased with time, with stabiliza-
tions from the eighth wash. Different results regard temporal changes
were obtained by Petersson and Roslund (2015) and Hartline et al.
(2016), which suggested that usage can increase fiber emission,
highlighting the need for more research related to this issue.
Apart from the analysis within each publication, different methods
(e.g., filters sizes, sample sizes) and assumptions (e.g., microplastic def-
inition regarding size, formula to convert mass in fibers) complicate
comparisons between studies, demanding standardization in future
works. On the other side, there is some agreement related to the influ-
ence of textile and washing parameters, but until the moment it is still
not clear what factors influence the most and how they interact with
each other. For this reason, we further propose information on launder-
ing parameters and textile articles characteristics to be considered and
informed when performing experiments with washing machines.
Regarding laundering parameters, according to washing dynamics
principles and information compiled from previous published experi-
ments, we understand it is important to register mechanical and chem-
ical factors. This information should be used and compared to other
works. Mechanical factors from domestic washing include: (1) washing
temperature, either informed by the machine, or measured in cases
where there is not such data or calibration is not trustworthy; (2) wash-
ing cycle description and duration, including total cycle and phases du-
ration (e.g., tumble rotation, immersion), (3) axis direction, top (vertical
axis) or front-loading (horizontal axis), including the verification of cen-
tral agitators for top load models; (4) rotations per minute (R.P.M.),
values and variances during all phases of washing cycle; (5) quantity
of water used during washing, for the whole cycle duration and during
each phase, (6) machine capacity and load ratio, including machine
limits and actual load; (7) filtration system, possibly including pores
size and conservancy of filters (if an used machine). On the other side,
chemical factors include: (1) detergent use, type, and general descrip-
tion of the product, (2) detergent quantity, including what recommen-
dations were used to choose quantity (brand information or machine
recommendation), (3) conditioner use, type, and general description
of the product, (4) conditioner quantity, including what recommenda-
tions were used to choose quantity (brand information or machine rec-
ommendation), (5) presence and quantity of other products, like
general cleaners. For both mechanical and chemical factors suggestion,
we highly recommend more studies to include or further alter the de-
scribed factors according to experiment results.
For the same reasons described for laundry parameters, we consider
the textile article according to its whole life production, suggesting the
following characteristics to be recorded and later related to fiber emis-
sion. It includes: (1) fiber type - cross-section shape, cross-section thick-
ness, length, composition (including known additives); (2) yarn type –
staple or filament, twists per unit length, number of filaments; (3) fabric
type – density, thickness, mass per unit area, structure rapport; (4)
finishing – chemical (e.g., ultraviolet radiance protection) or mechanical
(e.g., embroidery) finishing, (5) condition – if new or previously used or
washed article and (6) description of textile article, including type (e.g.,
garment), seaming presence, size and total weight.
7. Final remarks
Synthetic polymers relevance, as a raw material primordial to mod-
ern life, or as allochthonous component of ecosystems, is a common
place in recent publications related to environmental sciences. If in
one way field researches dominate discussions, studies that reveal do-
mestic laundering as microplastic sources are scarce, although growing.
Trying to combine both environmental with textile sciences, general
knowledge gaps were highlighted; firstly those directly related to fibers
misconception and later those influencing fibers as a source of
microplastics, mainly from domestic washings.
Regarding the concept of fibers as microplastics, as an interdisciplinary
subject, just recently addressed, it faces the natural problems of bringing
together terms of different areas and advances in the same direction. In
this sense, it is necessary to consider that researches started from environ-
mental sciences, which brings to light an unfavorable condition regarding
textile issues. This further highlights the importance of both areas work-
ing together, in order to first fix misconceptions, further concentrating
on factors influencing pollution. This is especially true for textile area.
Up to date, apart from the urgency call for a reduction in fibers emis-
sion, general textile sources are not known or poorly explored. This is
also the case for the most cited one: domestic washings. It is permeated
by unknown factors, especially from a textile perspective, but also from
domestic machines industry. This calls not just to the consideration of
the factors described in the present paper, but much more to standard-
ization and congruence between findings. Only from this multiple per-
spectives, public and private entities will be able to propose concrete
management options to be considered under a sustainable viewpoint.
This challenge should be shared among different but complimentary
science areas, aiming to reduce the input of synthetic fibers to the ocean.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by CAPES (Coordenação de
Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brazilian Federal
Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education) [grant
number 7873981].
References
ABNT NBR 12744, 1992. Textile Fibers – Classification. Brazilian National Standards Orga-
nization 8 pp.
 F. Salvador Cesa et al. / Science of the Total Environment 598 (2017) 1116–1129
Amberg, C., 2014. Hygiene Under the Microscope: Microbiology in the Domestic Laundry
Settings in Developed and Developing Settings – Challenges and Solutions. Swissatest
Test Materials Ag, St. Gallen, Switzerland Retrieved from. http://www.swissatest.ch/
files/downloads.
Andrady, A.L., 2011. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62:
1596–1605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030.
Proceedings of the international research workshop on the occurrence, effects and fate of
microplastic marine debris. In: Arthur, C., Baker, J., Bamford, H. (Eds.), Sept 9–11,
2008. NOAA Technical, Memorandum NOS-OR&R30 (49 pp.).
Avagyan, R., Luongo, G., Thórsen, G., Ostman, C., 2015. Benzothiazole, Benzotriazole, and
their derivates in clothing textiles – a potential source of environmental pollutants
and human exposure. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22 (8):5842,5849. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11356-014-3691-0.
Barnes, D.K.A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M., 2009. Accumulation and fragmenta-
tion of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci.
1526:1985–1998. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0205.
Barthel, C., Gotz, T., 2013. The Overall Worldwide Saving Potential From Domestic Wash-
ing Machines: With Results Detailed for 10 World Regions. Wuppertal Institute for
Climate, Environment and Energy:p. 64 (Retrieved from). http://www.bigee.net/en/
appliances/guide/residential/group/3/.
Bayo, J., Olmos, S., López-Castellanos, J., Alcolea, A., 2016. Microplastic and microfibers in
the sludge of a municipal wastewater treatment plant. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 11
(5):812–821. http://dx.doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V11-N5-812-821.
Brazil, 2016. Ministerio das Cidades. Secretaria Nacional de Saneamento Ambiental –
SNSA. Sistema Nacional de Informacoes sobre Saneamento: Diagnostico dos Servicos
de Agua e Esgotos – 2014 (“Ministry of Cities. National Environmental Sanitation Sec-
retariat - SNSA. National Information System on Sanitation: Diagnosis of Water and
Sewage Services – 2014”). Brasilia (Brazil), SNSA/MCIDADES (121 pp. (Retrieved
from)). http://www.epsjv.fiocruz.br/upload/Diagnostico_AE2014.pdf.
Brigden, K., Santillo, D., Johnston, P., 2012. Nonylphenol Ethoxylates (NPEs) in Textile
Products, and Their Release Through Laundering. Greenpeace (14 pp. (Retrieved
from)). http://www.greenpeace.org/luxembourg/Global/luxembourg/image/2012/
FashionVictim2012/TechnicalReport-06-2012.pdf.
Browne, M., Dissanayake, T., Galloway, T., Lowe, D., Thompson, R.C., 2008. Ingested micro-
scopic plastic translocates to the circulatory system of the mussel, Mytilus edulis (L.).
Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (13):5026–5031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es800249a.
Browne, M.A., Galloway, T.S., Thompson, R.C., 2010. Spatial patterns of plastic debris along
estuarine shorelines. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44:3404–3409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/
es903784e.
Browne, M.A., Crump, P., Niven, S.J., Teuten, E., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T., Thompson, R.,
2011. Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines worldwide: sources and sinks. En-
viron. Sci. Technol. 21:9175–9179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es201811s.
Browne, M.A., Niven, S.J., Galloway, S.T., Rowland, S.J., Thompson, R.C., 2013. Microplastic
moves pollutants and additives to worms, reducing functions linked to health and bio-
diversity. Current Biology 23:2388–2392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.012.
Browne, M.A., 2015. Sources and pathways of microplastics to habitats. In: Bergmann, M.,
Gutow, L., Klages, M. (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer International Pub-
lishing :pp. 229–244 (Chapter 9). 10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3.
Bruce, N., Hartline, N., Karba, S., Ruff, B., Sonar, S., 2016. Microfiber pollution and the ap-
parel industry. Group Project Report (Retrieved from). http://brenmicroplastics.
weebly.com/uploads/5/1/7/0/51702815/bren-patagonia_final_report_3-7-17.pdf.
Carr, S.A., Liu, J., Tesoro, A.G., 2016. Transport and fate of microplastic particles in waste-
water treatment plants. Water Res. 91:174–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.
2016.01.002.
Cartes, J.E., Soler-Membrives, A., Stefanescu, C., Lombarte, A., Carassón, M., 2016. Contri-
butions of allochthonous inputs of food to the diets of benthopelagic fish over the
northwest Mediterranean slope (to 2300). Deep-Sea Res. I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 109:
123–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2015.11.001.
Claessens, M., Meester, S.D., Landuyt, L.V., Clerck, K.D., Janssen, C.R., 2011. Occurrence and
distribution of microplastics in marine sediments along Belgian coast. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 62 (10):2199–2204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.06.030.
Claessens, M., Cauwenberghe, L., Vandegehuchte, M., Janssen, C., 2013. New techniques
for the detection of microplastics in sediments and field collected organisms. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 70 (1–2):227–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.03.009.
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., Galloway, T.S., 2011. Microplastic as contaminants in
the marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 12:2588–2597. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025.
Cole, M., Webb, H., Lindeque, P.K., Fileman, E.S., Halsband, C., Galloway, T., 2014. Isolation
of microplastics in biota-rich seawater samples and marine organisms. Sci. Report. 4:
1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep04528.
Dave, G., Aspegren, P., 2010. Comparative toxicity of leachates from 52 textiles to Daphnia
magna. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 73 (7):1629–1632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoenv.2010.06.010.
De Witte, B., Devriese, L., Bekaet, K., Hoffman, S., Vandermeersch, G., Cooreman, K.,
Robbens, J., 2014. Quality assessment of the blue mussel (Mytilus edis): comparison
between commercial and wild types. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 85:146–155. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.006.
Derraik, J., 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44:842–852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(02)00220-5.
Desforges, J., Galbraith, M., Dangerfield, N., Ross, P., 2014. Widespread distribution of
microplastics in subsurface seawater in the NE Pacific Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 79:
94–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.12.035.
Devriese, L.I., Meulen, M.D.V., Maes, T., Beakert, K., Paul-pont, I., Frère, L., Robbens, J.,
Vethaak, A.D., 2015. Microplastic contamination in brown shrimp (Crangon crangon,
Linnaeus 1758) from coastal waters of the Southern North Sea and Channel area.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 98:179–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.06.051.
1127
Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Rocher, V., Saad, M., Renault, N., Tassin, B., 2015. Microplastic contam-
ination in an urban area: a case in Greater Paris. Environ. Chem. 12 (5):592–599.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/EN14167.
Dris, R., Gasperi, C., Mirande, C., Mandin, C., Guerrouache, M., Langlois, V., Tassin, B.,
2016a. A first overview of textile fibers, including microplastics, in indoor and out-
door environments. Environ. Pollut.:1–6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.12.
013.
Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Saad, M., Mirande, M., Tassin, B., 2016b. Synthetic fibers in atmospheric
fallout: a source of microplastics in the environment? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 104 (1):
290–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.01.006.
Dubaish, F., Liebezeit, G., 2013. Suspended microplastics and black carbon particles in the
Jade system, Southern North Sea. Water Air Soil Pollut. 224 (2):1–8. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11270-012-1352-9.
Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L.C.M., Carson, H.S., Thiel, M., Moore, C.J., Borrero, J.C., Borrero, F.,
Ryan, P.G., Reisser, J., 2014. Plastic pollution in the world's oceans: more than 5 tril-
lion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PLoS ONE 9 (12):1–15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111913.
Faberi, S., Pressuto, M., Stamminger, R., Scialdoni, R., Mebane, W., Esposito, R., 2007. Pre-
paratory study for eco-design requirements of EuPs. LOT 14 Domestic washing ma-
chines & dishwashers. Final Report Task 3–5–1 :pp. 230–463 (Retrieved from).
http://www.eup-network.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Lot_13_Final_Report_Taks_3-5.
pdf.
FAO-ICAC. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and International
Cotton Advisory Committee, 2013. World Apparel Fiber Consumption Survey, Wash-
ington. (5 pp. (Retrieved from)). https://www.icac.org/cotton_info/publications/
statistics/world-apparel-survey/FAO-ICAC-Survey-2013-Update-and-2011-Text.pdf.
Fischer, V., Elsner, N.O., Brenke, N., Schwabe, E., Brandt, A., 2015. Plastic pollution of the
Kuril-Kamchatka Trench area (NW pacific). Deep-Sea Res. II 111:399–405. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2014.08.012.
Free, M.C., Jensen, O., Mason, S.A., Eriksen, M., Williamson, N.J., Boldgiv, B., 2014. High-
levels of microplastic pollution in a large, remote, mountain lake. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
85 (1):156–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.001.
Frias, J.P.G.L., Gago, J., Otero, V., Sobral, P., 2016. Microplastics in Coastal sediments from
Southern Portuguese shelf waters. Mar. Environ. Res. 114:24–30. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.12.006.
Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Maes, T., 2015. Global distribution, composition, and abundance of
marine litter. In: Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M. (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic
Litter. Springer International Publishing :pp. 29–56 (chapter 2). 10.1007/978-3-
319-16510-3.
GESAMP, 2010. Proceedings of the GESAMP International Workshop on plastic particles
as a vector in transporting persistent, bio-accumulating and toxic substances in the
oceans. In: Bowmer, T., Kershaw, P.J. (Eds.), (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/
IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on The Scientific Aspects of Marine En-
vironmental Protection) Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 82 (68 pp. (Retrieved from)). http://
www.gesamp.org/data/gesamp/files/media/Publications/Reports_and_studies_82/
gallery_1510/object_1670_large.pdf.
GESAMP, 2015a. Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental
Protection. Microplastics in the Ocean. (Retrieved from). http://www.gesamp.org/
microplastics-in-the-ocean—a-global-assessment—wg-40-brochure.
GESAMP, 2015b. Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment:
part 2 of a global assessment. In: Kershaw, P.J. (Ed.), (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/
UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on The Scientific Aspects
of Marine Environmental Protection) Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 90 (96 pp.). 10.13140/
RG.2.1.3803.7925.
GESAMP, 2016. Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: a
global assessment. In: Kershaw, P.J., Rochman, C.M. (Eds.), (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/
UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on The Scientific Aspects
of Marine Environmental Protection) Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 93 (220 pp.). 10.13140/
RG.2.1.3803.7925.
Goynes, W.R., Rollins, M.L., 1971. A scanning electron-microscope study of washer-dryer
abrasion in cotton fibers. Text. Res. J. 41 (3):226–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
004051757104100307.
Greenpeace International, 2011. Dirty Laundry: Unraveling the Corporate Connections to
Toxic Water Pollution in China. Greenpeace (116 pp. (Retrieved from). http://www.
greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/toxics/Water%
202011/dirty-laundry-report.pdf.
Habib, D., Locke, D.C., Cannone, L.J., 1998. Synthetic fibers as indicators of municipal sew-
age sludge, sludge products, and sewage treatment plant effluents. Water Air Soil
Pollut. 103 (1–4), 1–8.
Hartline, N., Bruce, N., Karba, S., Ruff, E., Sonar, S., Holden, P., 2016. Microfiber masses re-
covered from conventional machine washing of new or aged garments. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 50 (21):11532–11538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b03045.
Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Gutow, L., Thompson, R., Thiel, M., 2012. Microplastics in the marine en-
vironment: a review of the methods used for identification and quantification. Envi-
ron. Sci. Technol. 46:3060–3075. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2031505.
Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R., Kosior, E., 2009. Plastic recycling: challenges and opportunities.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 364:2115–2126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0311.
Hyaric, R.L., Canler, J.P., Barrllon, B., Naquin, P., Gourdon, R., 2009. Characterization of
screenings from three municipal wastewater treatment plants in the region Rhone-
Alpes. Water Sci. Technol. 60 (2):525–531. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.391.
Ivar do Sul, J., Costa, M., 2014. The present and future of microplastic pollution in the ma-
rine environment. Environ. Pollut. 185:352–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.
2013.10.036.
Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Nadrady, A., Narayan, R.,
Law, K.L., 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347 (6223):
768–770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415386.010.
1128 F. Salvador Cesa et al. / Science of the Total Environment 598 (2017) 1116–1129
Jemec, A., Horvat, P., Kunej, U., Bele, M., Krzan, A., 2016. Uptake and effects of microplastic
fibers on freshwater crustacean Daphnia magna. Environ. Pollut. 219:201–209. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.10.037.
Kang, J., Kwon, O., Lee, K., Song, Y., Shim, W.J., 2015. Marine neustonic microplastics
around the southeastern coast of Korea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 96 (1–2):304–312. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.054.
Karlsson, T., 2015. Can microliter in sediment and biota be quantified? Method Development
and Analysis of Microliter in Field Collected Biota and Sediment. University of Gothen-
burg and VU University of Amsterdam-IVM (Masther thesis). (Retrieved from). http://
bioenv.gu.se/digitalAssets/1558/1558551_bio762-master-thesis-t.-karlsson.pdf
Kruschwitz, A., Karle, A., Schmitz, A., Stamminger, R., 2014. Consumer laundry practices in
Germany. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 38 (3):265–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12091.
Laitala, K., Boks, C., Kleep, I.G., 2011. Potential for environmental improvements in laun-
dering. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 35 (2):254–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.
2010.00968.x.
Law, K.L., Thompson, R.C., 2014. Microplastics in the sea: concern is rising about wide-
spread contamination of the marine environment by microplastics. Science 345
(6193):144–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1254065.
Lee, J., Lee, J.S., Jang, Y.C., Hong, S.Y., Shim, W.J., Song, Y.K., Hong, D.H., Jang, M., Han, G.M.,
Kang, D., Hong, S., 2015. Distribution and size relationships of plastic marine debris
on beaches in South Korea. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 69 (3):288–298. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00244-015-0208-x.
Leslie, H.A., 2014. Review of Microplastics in Cosmetics. Report R14/29. IVM Institute for
Environmental studies:pp. 1–33 (Retrieved from). http://www.ivm.vu.nl/en/Images/
Plastic_ingredients_in_Cosmetics_07-2014_FINAL_tcm234-409859.pdf.
Lewin, M., 2007. Handbook of Fiber Chemistry. third ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1044 pp.).
Li, J., Yang, D., Li, L., Jabeen, K., Shi, H., 2015. Microplastics in commercial bivalves from
China. Environ. Pollut. 207:190–195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.09.018.
Li, W., Tse, H., Fok, L., 2016. Plastic waste in the marine environment: a review of sources,
occurrence and effects. Sci. Total Environ. 566–567:333–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.084.
Luongo, G., 2015. Chemicals in Textiles: a Potential Source for Human Exposure and Envi-
ronmental Pollution. (Thesis). Stockholm University (Retrieved from). https://www.
diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:850089/FULLTEXT02.pdf.
Lusher, A.L., mchugh, m., thompson, r.c., 2012. Occurrence of microplastics in the gastro-
intestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the English Channel. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 1-2:94–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.11.028.
Lusher, A., Burke, A., O'Connor, A., Officer, R., 2014. Microplastic pollution in the Northeast
Atlantic Ocean: validated and opportunistic sampling. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 88 (1–2):
325–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.08.023.
Lusher, A.L., Tirelli, V., O'Connor, I., Officer, R., 2015. Microplastic in Arctic polar waters:
the first reported values of particles in surface and sub-surface samples. Sci. Report.
5 (14947):1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep14947.
Mac Namara, C., Gabriele, A., Amador, C., Bakalis, S., 2012. Dynamics of textile motion in
front-loading domestic washing machine. Chem. Eng. Sci. 75:14–27. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ces.2012.03.009.
Macher, J.M., 2001. Review of methods to collect settled dust and isolate culturable micro-
organisms. Indoor Air 11 (2):99–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0668.2001.
110204.x.
Magnusson, K., Noren, F., 2014. Screening of Microplastic Particles in and Down-stream a
Wastewater Treatment Plant. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute (Retrieved
from). http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:773505/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
Maluf, E., Kolbe, W., 2003. Dados tecnicos para a industria textil (“Technical Data for the
Textile Industry”). second ed. Sao Paulo, IPT/ABIT (336 pp.).
Mathalon, A., Hill, P., 2014. Microplastic fibers in the intertidal ecosystem surrounding
Halifax Harbor, Nova Scotia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 81:69–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2014.02.018.
Mermaids, 2016. Ocean Clean Wash: Plastic Soup Foundation Charter to Stop Plastic Mi-
crofiber Release From Laundry in Washing Machines. (Retrieved from). http://www.
plasticsoupfoundation.org/en/2016/04/new-collaboration-with-gstar-to-stop-
plastic-microfibers.
Mcintyre, J.E., 2005. Synthetic fibers: Nylon, Polyester, Acrylic, Polyolefin. first ed.
Woodhead Publishing Limited, Boca Raton (300 pp.).
Mintenig, S.M., Int-Veen, I., Loder, M.G.J., Primpke, S., Gerdts, G., 2017. Identification of
microplastic in effluents of waste water treatment plants using focal plane array-
based micro-Fourier-transform infrared imaging. Water Res. 108:365–372. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.015.
Mogahzy, Y.E., 2009. Engineering textiles: integrating the design and manufacture of textile
products. Woodhead Publishing Limited and CRC Press, Cambridge, England (538 pp.).
Moore, C.J., 2008. Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly increasing,
long-term threat. Environ. Res. 108 (2):131–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.
2008.07.025.
Morritt, D., Stefanoudis, P.V., Pearce, D., Crimmen, O.A., Clark, P.F., 2014. Plastic in the
Thames: a river runs through it. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 78 (1–2):196–200. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.10.035.
Napper, I.E., Thompson, R.C., 2016. Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres from
domestic washing machines: effects of fabric type and washing condition. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 112:39–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.025.
Needles, H.L., 1986. Textile fibers, dyes, finishes, and processes. A Concise Guide. Noyes
Publications, United States (227 pp.).
Nel, H.A., Froneman, P.W., 2015. A quantitative analysis of microplastic pollution along
the south-eastern coastline of South Africa. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 101:274–279. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.09.043.
Neves, D., Sobral, P., Ferreira, J.L., Pereira, T., 2015. Ingestion of microplastics by commer-
cial fish off the Portuguese coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 101 (1):119–126. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.11.008.
Nobre, C., Santana, M., Maluf, A., Cortez, F., Cesar, A., Pereira, C., Turra, A., 2015. Assess-
ment of microplastic toxicity to embryonic development of the sea urchin Lytechinus
variegatus (Echinodermata: Echinoidea). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 92 (1–2):99–104. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.050.
Nor, N., Obbard, J., 2014. Microplastics in Singapore's coastal mangrove ecosystems.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 79 (1–2):278–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.
2013.11.025.
Obbard, R., Sadri, S., Wong, Y.Q., Khitun, A.A., Baker, I., Thompson, R.C., 2014. Global
warming releases microplastic legacy frozen in Artic Sea ice. Earth's Future 2:
315–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014EF000240.Abstract.
Oerlikon, 2010. The Fiber Year 2009/10: A World Survey on Textile and Nonwovens In-
dustry. Oerlikon, Switzerland (Retrieved from). http://www.indotextiles.com/
download/Fiber%20Year%202009_10.pdf.
Pakula, C., Stamminger, R., 2010. Electricity and water consumption for laundry washing
by washing machine worldwide. Energy Effic. 3 (4):365–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/s12053-009-9072-8.
Pakula, C., Stamminger, R., 2015. Energy and water savings potential in automatic laundry
washing processes. Energy Effic. 8 (2):205–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12053-014-
9288-0.
Petersson, H., Roslund, S., 2015. Tvattemissionn: en undersokning av polesterplaggs
fiberutslapp vid hushallstavattning. University of Boras, Sweden (Retrieved from).
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:820491/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
Pirc, U., Vidmar, M., Mozer, A., Krzan, A., 2016. Emissions of microplastic fibers from mi-
crofiber fleece during domestic laundry. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23:22206–22211.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7703-0.
Plastic Europe, 2013. APME: Analysis of Plastic Production, Demand and Recovery in Eu-
rope. Association of plastic manufacturers, Brussels (BE) (Retrieved from). http://
www.plasticseurope.org/documents/document/20131014095824-final_plastics_
the_facts_2013_published_october2013.pdf.
Plastic Europe, 2015. APME: Analysis of European Plastic Production, Demand and Waste
Data. Association of plastic manufacturers, Brussels (BE) (Retrieved from). http://
www.plasticseurope.org/documents/document/20150227150049-final_plastics_
the_facts_2014_2015_260215.pdf.
Remy, F., Collard, F., Gilbert, B., Compére, P., Eppe, G., Lepoint, G., 2015. When microplastic
is not plastic: the ingestion of artificial cellulose fibers by macrofauna living in
seagrass Macrophytodetritus. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (18) (1158–1116). 10.1021/
acs.est.5b02005.
Rochman, C.M., Hoh, E., Kurobe, T., The, S.J., 2013. Ingested plastic transfers hazardous
chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress. Sci. Report. 3 (3263):1–7. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1038/srep03263.
Rochman, C.M., Tahir, A., Williams, S.L., Baxa, D.V., Lam, R., Miller, J.T., Teh, F., Werorilangi,
S., The, S.J., 2015. Anthropogenic debris in sea food: plastic debris and fibers from tex-
tiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption. Sci. Report. 5 (14340):1–10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep14340.
Ryan, P., Moloney, C., 1990. Plastic and other artefacts on South African beaches: temporal
trends in abundance and composition. S. Afr. J. Sci. 86, 450–452.
Shove, A., 2003. Converging conventions of comfort, cleanliness and convenience.
J. Consum. Policy 26:395–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026362829781.
Sivan, A., 2011. New perspectives in plastic biodegradation. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 22 (3):
422–426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2011.01.013.
St Laurent, J.B., Buzzaccarini, F., Clerck, K., Demeyere, H., Labeque, R., Lodewick, R.,
Langenhove, L.V., 2007. Laundry Cleaning of Textiles. Handbook for Cleaning/Decon-
tamination of Surfaces 1:pp. 57–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-044451664-0/
50003-6.
Sundt, P., Schultze, P., Syversen, F., 2014. Sources of Microplastic-pollution to the Marine
Environment. Norwegian Environment Agency, 108:p. 1 (Retrieved from). http://
www.miljodirektoratet.no/Documents/publikasjoner/M321/M321.pdf.
Sutton, R., Mason, S.A., Stanek, S.K., Willis-Norton, E., 2016. Microplastic contamination in
the San Francisco Bay, California, USA. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 109 (1):230–235. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.077.
Swedish Chemical Agency, 1997. Chemicals in Textiles: Report of a Government Commission.
Swedish Chemical Agency (KEMI), Solna (Retrieved from). http://www3.kemi.se/
Documents/Publikationer/Trycksaker/Rapporter/Report_5_97_Chemicals_in_textiles.
pdf.
Talvitie, J., Heinonen, M., 2014. BASE PROJECT: Preliminary Study on Synthetic Microfibers
and Particles at a Municipal Waste Water Treatment Plant. Baltic Marine Environ-
ment Protection Commission, Helcom (Retrieved from). http://www.helcom.fi/
Lists/Publications/Microplastics%20at%20a%20municipal%20waste%20water%
20treatment%20plant.pdf.
Talvitie, J., Heinonen, M., Pääkkönen, J., Vahtera, E., Mikola, A., Setälä, O., Vahala, R., 2015.
Do wastewater treatment plants act as a potential point source of microplastics? Pre-
liminary study in the coastal Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea. Water Sci. Technol. 72 (9):
1495–1504. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2015.360.
Teuten, E.L., Saquing, J.M., Knappe, D.R.U., Barlaz, M.A., Jonsson, S., Björn, A., Rowland, S.J.,
Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S., Yamashita, R., Ochi, D., Watanuki, Y., Moore, C., Viet,
P.H., Tana, T.S., Prudente, M., Ruchaya, B., Zakaria, M.P., Akkhavong, K., Ogata, Y.,
Hirai, H., Iwasa, S., Mizukawa, K., Hagino, Y., Imamura, A., Saha, M., Takada, H.,
2009. Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to
wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 364:2027–2045. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.
2008.0284.
Thompson, R.C., Olsen, Y., Mitchell, R.P., Davis, A., Rowland, S.J., John, A.W.G., Mcgonigle,
D., Russel, A.E., 2004. Lost at Sea: where is all the plastic? Science 5672:838. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1094559.
Thompson, R.C., Moore, C., Andrady, A., Gregory, M., Takada, H., Weiberg, S., 2005. New
directions in plastic debris. Science 310 (5751):1117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.310.5751.1117b.
 F. Salvador Cesa et al. / Science of the Total Environment 598 (2017) 1116–1129
Thompson, R., Moore, C., Vom Saal, F., Swan, S., 2009. Plastics, the environment and
human health: current consensus and future trends. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser.
B Biol. Sci. 364:2153–2166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0053.
Turra, A., Manzano, A.B., Dias, R.J., Mahiques, M.M., Barbosa, L., Balthazar-Silva, D.,
Moreira, F., 2014. Three-dimensional distribution of plastic pellets in sandy beaches:
shifting paradigms. Sci. Report. 4:1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep04435.
UNEP, 2005. Regional Seas Programme, Marine Litter and Abandoned Fishing Gear. Unit-
ed Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi (Retrieved from). http://cep.
unep.org/content/about-cep/amep/rs-abandoned-fishing-gear-report/at_download/
file.
UNEP, 2016. Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics: Global Lessons and Research to In-
spire Action and Guide Policy Change. United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), Nairobi (Retrieved from). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-
environmental-status/descriptor-10/pdf/Marine_plastic_debris_and_microplastic_
technical_report_advance_copy.pdf.
Van Amber, R.R., Niven, B.E., Wilson, C.A., 2010. Effects of laundering and water temper-
ature on the properties of silk and silk-blend knitted fabrics. Text. Res. J. 80 (15):
1557–1568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0040517510366019.
Van den Brekel, L.D.M., 1987. Hydrodynamics and Mass Transfer in Domestic Drum-type
Fabric Washing Machines. Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherland (Ph.D.
Thesis). (Retrieved from). http://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%
3A69dc3101-a6ee-4e05-a0f0-30a75421b86a.
Varjonen, J., Aalto, K., 2006. Household production and Consumption in Finland 2001:
Household Satellite Account. Helsinki, National Consumer Research Centre (Re-
trieved from). http://www.stat.fi/tup/kantilinpito/2001_household_satellite_
account.pdf.
Verschoor, A., Poorter, L., Roex, E., Bellert, B., 2014. Quick scan and prioritization of
microplastic sources and emissions. RIVM Advisory Letter 250012001. National Insti-
tute for Public Health and Environment, Bilthoven (NL) :p. 41 (Retrieved from).
http://www.rivm.nl/dsresource?objectid=b14d58ab-5579-4b17-aae2-
5c5e1e21eb4f&type=org&disposition=inline.
Warmoeskerken, M.M.C.G., Van der Vlist, P., Moholkar, V.S., Nierstrasz, V.A., 2002. Laun-
dry process intensification by ultrasound. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp.
210 (2–3):277–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0927-7757(02)00372-2.
Watt, R., Roux, C., Robertson, J., 2007. The population of coloured textile fibres in domestic
washing machines. Sci. Justice 45 (2):75–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1355-
0306(05)71632-4.
Webster, T.F., Harrad, S., Millette, J.R., Holbrook, R.D., Davis, J.M., Stapleton, H.M., Allen,
J.G., McClean, M.D., Ibarra, C., Abdallah, M.A., Covaci, A., 2009. Identifying transfer
mechanisms and sources of decabromodiphenyl ether (BDE 209) in indoor environ-
ments using environmental forensic microscopy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (9):
3067–3072. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es803139w.
Welden, N.A.C., Cowie, P.R., 2016. Environment and gut morphology influence
microplastic retention in langoustine, Nephrops norveicus. Environ. Pollut. 214:
859–865. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.03.067.
1129
Wesch, C., Barthel, A., Braun, U., Klein, R., Paulus, M., 2016. No microplastic in benthic eel-
pout (Zoarces viviparous): an urgent need for spectroscopic analyses in microplastic
detection. Environ. Res. 148:36–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.03.017.
Wiewel, B., Lamoree, M., 2016. Geotextile composition, application and ecotoxicology – a
review. J. Hazard. Mater. 317:640–655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.04.
060.
Woodall, L.C., Sanchez-Vidal, A., Canals, M., Paterson, G.L.J., Coppock, R., Sleight, V., Calafat,
A., Rogers, A.D., Narayanaswamy, B.E., Thompson, R.C., 2014. The deep sea is a major
sink for microplastic debris. R. Soc. Open Sci. 1 (140317):1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1098/rsos.140317.
Wright, S.L., Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S., 2013. The physical impacts of microplastics
on marine organisms: a review. Environ. Pollut. 178:483–492. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.envpol.2013.02.031.
Wright, S.L., Rowe, D., Reid, M.J., Thomas, K.V., Galloway, T.S., 2015. Bioaccumulation and
biological effects of cigarette litter in marine worms. Sci. Report. 5 (14119):1–10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep14119.
Yu, X., Peng, J., Wang, J., Wang, K., Bao, S., 2016. Occurrence of microplastics in the beach
sand of the Chinese inner sea: the Bohai sea. Environ. Pollut. 214 (772–730). 10.1016/
j.envpol.2016.04.080.
Zalasiewicz, J., Waters, C.N., Ivar do Sul, J.A., Corcoran, L., Barnosky, A.D., Cearreta, A.,
Edgeworth, M., Galuska, A., Jeandel, C., Leinfelder, R., Mcneill, J.R., Steffen, W.,
Summerhayes, C., Wagreich, M., Williams, M., Wolfe, A.P., Yonan, Y., 2015. The geo-
logical cycle of plastic and their use as stratigraphic indicator of Anthropocene.
Anthropocene 13:4–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2016.01.002.
Zettler, E.R., Mincer, T.J., Amaral-Zettler, L.A., 2013. Life in the “Plastisphere”: microbial
communities on plastic marine debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47:7137–7146. http://
pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401288x.
Zhao, S., Zhu, L., Wang, T., Daoii, L., 2014. Suspended microplastics in the surface water of
the Yangtze Estuary system in China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 86 (1–2):562–568. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.032.
Zhao, S., Zhu, L., Li, D., 2016. Microscopic anthropogenic litter in terrestrial birds from
Shanghai, China: Not only plastic but also natural fibers. Sci. Total Environ. 550:
1110–1115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.112.
Ziajahromi, S., Neale, P.A., Rintoul, L., Leusch, F.D.L., 2017. Wastewater treatment plants as
a pathway for microplastics: development of a new approach to sample wastewater-
based microplastics. Water Res. 112:93–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.
01.042.
Zubris, K.A.V., Richards, B.K., 2005. Synthetic fibers as an indicator of land application of
sludge. Environ. Pollut. 138:201–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2005.04.
013.