9 ms·
Delicate wash cycles release more microfibres
- flockonus 7y agoWouldn't it be better advice to avoid buying synthetic fabric clothes, as much as possible?
- jweir 7y agoYes but it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so. Clothing that was 100% cotton in the past now has a bit of spandex or other synthetic to give it a stretch.
- bipson 7y agoEspecially if you are looking for functional clothing. I am not fond of the idea of going back to run or bike in cotton, especially considering commutes and bad weather. Are there alternatives to synthetic clothing?
- Leynos 7y agoI don't know if there are any 100% options, but wool seems to be a possibility. It's usually blended with tencel, nylon, and/or lycra.
- tomp 7y agoTencel is actually not that synthetic (made from cellulose). Personally I cannot stand most wool directly on my skin, exceptions being merino and cashmere, and no wool on wet (sweating) skin, but tencel is amazing.
- bosie 7y agoMerino wool?
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y agoIs definitely the best option for technical clothes for cold weather. Try and avoid the blends and look for as close to 100% as possible.
- 4ad 7y agoI'd say that if you want your merino wool to last, it's imperative to look for blends. Pure merino wool is extremely fragile. Whether that's bad for the environment or not, I don't know.
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y agoBlends need to be washed way more often. If you don't overwash your pure wool it will last well. Source my clothes.
- zaroth 7y agoExcept that this particular discussion is about using wool in performance athletic gear.
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y agoI know I use wool for cross country skiing and cycling in cooler months. These clothes last several uses. When I try the same with plastic blends they need washing after one use. EDIT. Several uses closely spaced and the items are aired out between use. If you sweat all over some wool then leave it in ball for a week it will probably rot.
- 4ad 7y agoI don't find this to the the case at all. Most of my base layers are blended merino and they need to be washed just as rarely as pure merino. Perhaps not all blends are created equal.
- 7y ago
- mikestew 7y agoFor running, I've gone exclusively to the "SmartWool" type shirts. To me they're just as cool when it's warm as the give-away nylon shirts you get at races, and I can get the stench out that simply refuses to leave synthetic shirts. Works well in the wet, and when I was bike commuting through Seattle winters I'd probably be wool all the way to the outer layer. Back in the day, wool cycle shorts were common, but I've not looked for them recently and just stuck to the usual spandexey shorts.
- autokad 7y agograb a trash bag and spend a few hours picking up plastic trash on your street. You'll probably remove more plastic from the environment than 100 lifetimes of avoiding the delicate cycle.
- bipson 7y agoIt's not about plastic trash in general, the concern here is microplastics in the sewage/ocean/food chain. And yes, I know that plastics lying around might eventually land in the ocean as microplastics. That doesn't mean that we should ignore the problems caused by synthetic clothing.
- agsilvio 7y agoLet's ignore it actually.
- aaron695 7y agoSo clothing which loses hardly any of its weight and then gets buried (after lasting much longer due to delicate washes) compared to plastic that gets caught in the ocean wash for decades until its nothing. Microfibers in reality have zero environmental impact anyway, but this pedantry is why people do nothing. What's the point. It's never good enough for people. Picking up rubbish has a impact and is easy to understand. Not allowed to even delicate wash, WTF
- asteli 7y agoIt's complicated. Synthetics have a lower environmental footprint than say, cotton, at least on the production side. Cotton farming uses among the highest amounts of pesticides of any cash crop, and still require fertilizer (oft petroleum derived). I'm not sure where the balance lies in overall environmental impact, but microplastics from laundering could be mitigated by filtering. Patagonia for example sell a filter bag to launder their fleeces in that supposedly catches some of the microplastic effluent.
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y agoOnce the microplastics are generated they are quite hard to contain.
- spicymaki 7y agoLinen is pretty green. It is made of flax and has low energy consumption during production, and moderate water use. Much lower water use than cotton on the production end, but it needs to be ironed which increases the energy use on the consumer end. It is biodegradable as well.
- primroot 7y agoI would say our unscientific backward sense of aesthetics requires us to iron. Let's recall Veblen's ideas, and move society forward by questioning all the wasteful status-signalling rituals. Update: your comment is more reason for me to buy Linen. I originally preferred it to cotton since the fabric tends to be more well suited to my warm tropical environment.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoIf you line dry, little to no ironing is usually required, even if you want to look like you still own one and remember where it is. :)
- magduf 7y agoLinen is terrible for actual use though. Requiring ironing is ridiculous; not only does that use a lot of energy, it takes a lot of time too. Sure, you could just not iron like the other poster said, but then your clothes look horribly wrinkled and unkempt, unlike with other fabrics that just don't have this problem. Finally, linen isn't warm at all. It's just a lousy fabric. There's a reason so much stuff is made of synthetic fibers like nylon and polyester now: it performs extremely well, it wears extremely well (i.e., it doesn't wear out quickly, so you don't have to replace it very often), it feels nice, it cleans easily, etc.
- GuB-42 7y agoSynthetic clothes also clean more easily. Less susceptible to stains, lower temperature wash cycle, quicker drying, an less need for ironing, if at all. There is trade off here.
- autokad 7y agonot going to destroy my clothes for an infinitesimal amount of plastic in waste water, especially since I have no doubt that any positive environmental impact would be offset by replacing clothes more often. they do argue that their 1 small study suggested the delicate cycle wears clothes out faster, but I highly doubt that. more evidence is needed.
- bipson 7y agoIf the experiment was not flawed, it is pretty clear evidence, isn't it? What factors did they miss in your opinion? Other machine brand? Water hardness?
- itscrapthatswhy 7y agoNo offence, but it doesn't seem like either of you even read the article before commenting.
- bipson 7y agoDo you mind if I take it as offense? I read the article. Any reason why you think I didn't? How could you think such a statement is not offensive?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- itscrapthatswhy 7y agoThis title is misleading/clickbait. It really has little to do with the cycle. "New research led by Newcastle University has shown that it is the volume of water used during the wash cycle, rather than the spinning action of the washing machine, which is the key factor in the release of plastic microfibres from clothes." So it depends on the washing machine. Not all will use more water for the delicate cycle. Frigging hate such misleading bullshit.
- dwoozle 7y agoI mean of course it doesn’t depend on the setting on the cycle knob, but delicate cycles usually means more water at lower agitation speed, for longer time. So the title seems fine to me.
- neoteo 7y agoFocusing on the fabric as the problem ignores the other major issue of the wasteful way we clean our clothes. This could potentially be much improved if we developed alternative ways of cleaning our clothes that didn’t waste resources and pollute as much as the current system: using lots of water, energy to heat the water, detergents to clean, energy to generate friction and circulation, dumping the waste into nature. Are there any current efforts/research into new and better (efficient & sustainable) fabric cleaning systems?
- raverbashing 7y agoYou can always wash your clothes by hand using "natural" soaps (like coconut oil soap). Then dry them using a clothesline, weather permitting.
- Scoundreller 7y agoUse the clothesline indoors anyway. Dryers ruin clothes, then you have to buy more.
- e12e 7y agoYou really want to uv treat your cold washed clothes, though (hang them outside). It kills bacteria about as well as bleach - see this subthread and story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17069083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17069083 In particular (the now moved) : http://www.dranniesexperiments.com/sunlight-testing http://www.dranniesexperiments.com/sunlight-testing
- Scoundreller 7y agoSure, if you can. But if you can’t... Dunno how necessary it is to UV disinfect clothes after washing. We don’t live in a sterile world.
- perl4ever 7y ago
- 4ad 7y ago> In fact, they found that on average, 800,000 more fibres were released in a delicate wash than a standard cycle. Absolutely hopeless article. It makes a huge difference whether the number of fibers released in a standard cycle is 1k or 20M. It's the ratio between the two cycles that matters. Article doesn't mention that. No link to the paper either.
- hanoz 7y agoIf agitation is actually the main mechanism for breaking off microfibers, with the greater volume of water in a delicate wash just helping to float them away, then could it be that a normal cycle does break off more microfibers after all, but they enter the environment during drying or everyday wear instead?
- mrob 7y agoAnd if that's the case, are they more dangerous in water, where they might enter digestive systems, or in air, where they might enter lungs?
- Scoundreller 7y agoCould this study be used as a proxy for wash cycle impact on durability? Do clothes actually last longer washed under the delicate cycle? And wouldn’t the microfibre release be highest for new clothes and decrease over time as the relatively weakly attached fibres progressively break away? Until you get catastrophic fabric failure...
- feb 7y agoYou can read the measurements in "Importance of Water-Volume on the Release of Microplastic Fibers from Laundry" by the team at the university of Newcastle : https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.9b03022/suppl_file/es9b03022_si_001.pdf https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.9b03022/suppl... Edit: the publication of the full article seem to be under embargo (https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/259968 https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/259968)