
Delicate wash cycles release more microfibres - lelf
https://phys.org/news/2019-09-ditch-delicate-seas.html
======
hanoz
If 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
And 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?

------
4ad
> 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.

------
flockonus
Wouldn't it be better advice to avoid buying synthetic fabric clothes, as much
as possible?

~~~
asteli
It'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.

~~~
spicymaki
Linen 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.

~~~
magduf
Linen 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.

~~~
magduf
Oh yeah, I forgot to add: you can't wash linen! You have to dry clean it (or
at least a lot of it). Dry cleaning is _horrible_ for the environment, and
uses a lot of nasty chemicals, and it's expensive too.

~~~
stouset
Really? I wash my linen shirts, haven’t seen a problem.

------
autokad
not 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
If 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?

------
feb
You 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...](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.9b03022/suppl_file/es9b03022_si_001.pdf)

Edit: the publication of the full article seem to be under embargo
([https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/259968](https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/259968))

------
neoteo
Focusing 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?

~~~
Angostura
I think we've been working quite hard on that problem. Most of the detergents
I use today (in the UK) are now cold water detergents, that don't need warm
water for every day use. Modern front-loading washing machines use about 50
litres (10 gallons) for a full load - about a fifth of old top-loaders.

I seem to recall some research into using ultrasound to clean fabrics, but I'm
not sure where we are on that.

~~~
fyfy18
Modern machines vary the water consumption based on the load, so in reality
it's even less. On a 40c wash they will consume around 0.5kWh of electricity.

------
itscrapthatswhy
This 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
I 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.

------
Scoundreller
Could 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...

