Addressing Microplastic Pollution from Laundry … · synthetic fibres in clothing. 2. onsumers to avoid buying clothes C containing synthetic fibres 3. ashing clothes less frequently,

Addressing Microplastic Pollution from LaundryNovember 2019

A Xeros Technologies Publication

http://www.xerostech.com

“Plastic pollution in our marine environment

is taking place on a staggering scale … the

widespread contamination of our oceans is fast

becoming a worldwide human health risk as

plastic enters our food and water supplies”

Inger Andersen, Executive Director, UN Environment Program former Director General, International Union for Conservation of Nature

XFiltra addresses the single biggest source of primary microplastic pollution in our oceans: the washing of clothes in our homes

Contents

Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................3

Extent ..............................................................................................................................................................................7

The Microplastic Problem ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Public Research ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Solution ........................................................................................................................................................................13

XFiltra Design .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Performance Testing .........................................................................................................................................15

Summary .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................15

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................16

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................................................17

Performance Testing Detail ....................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Method .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Analysis and Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................................18

Results .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................................21

Xeros Technology Group | Addressing Microplastic Pollution from Laundry


Few issues generate as much passion, interest and debate as plastic. Hardly a day goes by without new revelations about how much plastic we use and the impact of plastic waste.

Much of the recent debate has tended to focus on how larger plastic items like packaging, bags and straws have come to litter our land and marine environments. In response many people have chosen to minimise their use of plastic, avoid it altogether and act to remove plastic litter from land and marine habitats.

Governments too have responded by restricting the use of many single-use plastics whilst prohibiting products like plastic straws and shopping bags.

But plastic itself is not a bad thing. It has revolutionised industry and manufacturing and enabled the production of advanced materials and products that were simply not possible 20 years ago.

In the clothing industry the advent of polymer-based synthetic fibres like nylon and polyester has transformed fashion and revolutionised garment production, through light weight, specialist and high-performance materials.

These fibres are strong, soft and flexible and can be woven together with other fabrics to add new qualities to our clothes. In denim, for example, they allow elasticity to be added to finished garments enabling the waistbands of jeans to be more forgiving.

Synthetic fibres have become so popular in the clothing industry, among both manufacturers and consumers, that more than 60% of the clothes we buy today contain them.

But, as with the debate about plastics in general, problems arise when these products are allowed to enter our natural environment unchecked.

When we wash our clothes at home tiny fragments break off in the washing machine and are released unseen, with the wastewater, into rivers and oceans.

Collectively the tiny synthetic fibres represent a major source of microplastic pollution in our oceans, equivalent in volume to every person on the planet throwing 15 plastic shopping bags into the sea every year.

The challenge is in finding a way to stop it.

Foreword

1 Xeros Technology Group | Addressing Microplastic Pollution from Laundry


Today, not a single washing machine is manufactured with effective in-machine filtration technology to prevent microplastic emissions.

So, two years ago, Xeros made a voluntary commitment to the UN Oceans Conference to develop a solution for washing machines. I’m proud to say that XFiltra is the fulfilment of that promise.

New technologies are rapidly turning our humble washing machines into smart devices. By incorporating XFiltra, manufacturers can take a giant step to put washing machines on the front-line of efforts to address ocean plastic pollution.

In this report we focus on the role played by washing machine filtration in tackling this urgent issue and present detailed analysis of our product XFiltra and its performance in mitigating the loss of synthetic microfibres.

I hope it will convince manufacturers of the urgent need for this technology, and educate politicians, stakeholders and consumers alike of an issue that can no longer be ignored.

Mark NicholsChief Executive Officer

Xeros Technology Group plc

Xeros Technology Group | Addressing Microplastic Pollution from Laundry 2


When imagining plastic pollution in the sea, the first images that come to mind are likely of bottles, bags and packaging.

However, it is estimated that primary microplastics comprise up to one third of plastic in the oceans. This refers to plastic released directly into the sea as small particles, with dimensions lower than 5 mm. The main source of primary microplastics in the ocean is the washing of clothes containing synthetic fibres1.

Synthetic fibres are derived from oil.2 Use of synthetics by the clothing industry has grown considerably over the last 20 years, to more than 42 million tonnes p.a.1

More than 60% of our clothes contain them.

When clothes made from synthetic fabrics such as polyester, nylon and acrylic are cleaned in a washing machine,

tiny fragments break off, forming microplastic fibres. As many as 700,000 can be released into the water system from each wash, weighing approximately 0.5g in total.3

Globally, it is calculated that 500,000 tonnes of microplastic fibres are released into the oceans in this way every year.1

As global populations rise and people become more affluent and urbanised, the ownership of domestic washing machines and clothes made using synthetic fibres will also increase. This is likely to exacerbate the issue.

From the simple act of cleaning our clothes in a washing machine, these microplastic fibres begin a journey towards our rivers and oceans. On the way, some larger particles of plastic are caught by water treatment plants.2

However, these facilities are not equipped to effectively and efficiently filter tiny microplastic fibres from laundry effluent and retrofitting them to do so would require enormous amounts of money.5, 6

Once in the aquatic environment, these tiny microplastics do not biodegrade and are almost impossible to recover.

As such they will linger on our planet for many, many years.4

Introduction

Plastic, marine litter in the ocean



Studies have shown how microplastic fibres are entering the food chain.

Dr Richard Kirby was among the first to document plankton ingesting a single microfibre strand. Plankton form the base of the food chain for most marine creatures and ultimately, humans.

Recent work has shown that we too could be ingesting around 50,000 tiny plastic particles every year..10

The health implications of microplastic fibres entering the food chain are not yet fully understood. However, research has indicated several negative impacts to creatures living in our oceans.7-9

There is consensus that the release of microplastic fibres into the environment has the potential to cause harm and should stop. However, to date, few large-scale, workable and cost-effective solutions have been offered to minimise the release of microfibres into the world’s oceans from domestic laundry.

Some possible options could include:

1. Stopping or reducing the use of synthetic fibres in clothing

2. Consumers to avoid buying clothes containing synthetic fibres

3. Washing clothes less frequently, employing lower temperatures to minimise fibre loss

4. Asking consumers to use products to reduce microfibre release such as laundry bags

5. Retrofitting wastewater treatment plants to filter microfibres

Whilst committing to any, or all of these options would certainly help minimise the release of microplastic fibres, none offers a realistic, long-term, sustainable solution.

A better option would be to look at harnessing technology to stop the issue at source and prevent the release of microplastic fibres from washing machines in the first place.

Projected washing machine sales growth by region44

Marine plankton (diatoms) under the microscope.

0

10

20

30

40

50

MEALatin AmericaAsia PacificEuropeNorth America

2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019

$US

BIL

LIO

NS



Already, several companies have begun to offer filtration solutions, direct to consumers, which are designed to be added to existing washing machines.

But these filters are expensive, place the onus on consumers to take the initiative and require a degree of technical knowledge to be correctly installed, operated and maintained.

With hundreds of millions of washing machines currently in use around the world and millions more sold every year, retrofitting after-market filtration technology to washing machines is not a realistic solution.

The most effective and cost-effective option is to mandate the installation of in-machine microfibre filtration technology at the point of manufacture.

XFiltra is designed for this purpose.

With a consumer-friendly design, Xeros’ proprietary technology comes ready-installed in the washing machine, operates automatically and makes the collection and disposal of microplastic fibres no more difficult than emptying the filter on a tumble dryer.

The purpose of this report is to highlight the issue of microplastic pollution caused by cleaning clothes in a washing machine, and to present an open and detailed analysis of the performance characteristics of our product, XFiltra.

We do this in the belief that it is time for washing machine manufacturers, decision-makers, politicians and other stakeholders to act, to stem the flow of microplastic pollution from laundry.

With this ease of use, and microplastic

capture up to 99%, XFiltra can help

tackle our microplastic problem.

A modern wastewater treatment plant

Xeros Technologies infographic, 2018

UP TO



Single use plastic straws, drink stirrers and cotton buds will be banned in England from 2020. But the volume of these items ending up in the ocean each year is tiny compared to the volume of microplastic fibres from domestic laundry.

“Action to stem the flow of microplastic fibres

into the ocean, from the clothes in our washing

machines, must be taken quickly. XFiltra can put

our washing machines on the front-line of efforts to

prevent plastic pollution in our oceans”

Mark Nichols, CEO Xeros Technology Group

Xeros Technologies infographic, 2019

The Microplastic Problem

The accumulation of plastic litter in aquatic environments is a growing topic of concern for governments, conservationists, the scientific community and the general public.11-18 Waste and littering has resulted from the increased use of plastics and the poor control and management of products across their life cycle..15

The discovery of plastic litter in the most remote corners of the planet highlights the need to gain control over the use and proper disposal of these materials.21, 22

Once in the environment microplastics persist for years, entering the food chain with potentially detrimental consequences.15-20 Ingestion by ocean creatures is generally acknowledged but as yet there is a lack of research focusing on the potential harmful effects. Even less is understood about the possible ill-health effects to humans through subsequent ingestion.23-28

The World Health Organisation initiated a review of the potential health effects and risks of plastic in drinking water after analysis, published by Orb Media, revealed the presence of plastic fragments in both tap and bottled water.29

The review concluded that while there did not appear to be a risk to human health

this was based on limited information. The WHO issued an urgent call for more detailed analysis and a reduction in plastic pollution to benefit the environment and reduce human exposure.43

A growing body of evidence detailing the extent of plastic littering the environment has prompted governments to act in order to reduce certain sources of plastic waste. Some examples include:

In 2015, the United States introduced the Microbead-Free Waters Act, banning microplastics in cosmetics.31 The United Kingdom passed similar legislation in 2017, which took effect at the start of 2018.32 Building on this, the UK government recently introduced a charge for single-use plastic bags, with a view to eradicate avoidable plastic waste by 2042.33

A ban on single-use plastic straws, drinks stirrers and cotton buds is to take effect in England from April 2020.34 In the US, California has banned single use plastic bags, and cities and municipalities across the country are enacting similar bans.35

NGOs continue to apply pressure on governments in relation to the use of plastic and reducing subsequent issues of littering. In 2019 the European NGO, Plastic Soup Foundation released an open letter to the European Commission stating:

Extent



“We urge the [European] Commission to develop strong regulatory measures to reduce the current European plastic footprint”.36

The Commission itself has introduced new rules designed to reduce plastic marine litter by targeting the 10 most common single-use plastics found on beaches.37

More recently, the Commission has looked at the role of domestic washing machines in tackling environmental issues and specifically microplastic pollution.

In 2019 it published a revision to the Ecodesign directive for household washing machines which aims to minimise their environmental impact.38

Section 8 of the directive commits the Commission to review the feasibility of requiring the installation of microplastic filters in washing machines.

The use of synthetic fibres in the clothing industry has increased rapidly in recently years. Growth of close to 300% between 1992-2010 has taken total use to more than 42 million tonnes p.a.1 Synthetic fibres used in clothes mainly consist of polyethylene terephthalate (polyester), polyamides (nylon) and polyacrylate (acrylic). Polyester takes the majority share, accounting for

49% of global fibre production in 2014.39

Tecnon OrbiChem predicts that demand for synthetic fibres will continue to increase over time as the resources needed to produce natural fibres, such as land and water, become increasingly scarce. In addition, it cites the durability and cost benefits offered by synthetic alternatives.39

The issue of microplastic fibres shed during the cleaning of garments containing synthetic fibres was first presented in a 2016 study initiated by Patagonia Outfitters and conducted by the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management.Researchers found that a single fleece jacket can shed up to 250,000 microplastic fibres during a single wash.6

An additional study in 2016 by the University of Michigan found that the majority of microplastics in waste water treatment plants (WWTPs) exist as fibres, identifying laundry as the primary source of microplastic fibres in influent to WWTPs.5

The mechanism of fibre release in the laundry process is complicated, with many factors such as temperature, detergent, mechanical action, cycle length, garment structure and material type all contributing to the release profile.1, 3, 6, 40-42



Currently, laundry effluent containing microfibres is discharged with no filtration designed to remove foreign bodies. In locations with public sewers, residential wastes are transported to waste water treatment plants (WWTPs) typically owned and financed by agencies of municipalities.

WWTPs are critical components of urban and inland water systems, treating industrial and domestic waste water before discharging the treated effluent to the environment. These treatment plants are not designed to filter large volumes of microplastics, thus a considerable amount is able to flow into oceans and rivers through WWTP discharge.5

Even where systems do have the filtration necessary to capture some percentage of microparticles, the vast amount of influent treated by the WWTPs means that any small inefficiency in filtration efficacy results in the release of billions of microplastic fibres.5

A small number of WWTPs are designed with technology to filter microplastics capable of removing as much as 99%, however many of them are not as efficient.For example, central WWTP of Vodokanal, Russia, releases up to 153.4 billion fibres per day.5, 6

Even if WWTPs successfully filtered out 100% of microplastic from the influent, the sewage sludge collected from the process contains 80-90% of captured

microplastic fibres. This sludge is often used as fertiliser for specific types of agricultural land, displacing this plastic to terrestrial environments.5, 19 This raises the issue of potential hazards of microplastics in agriculture.

A rapidly growing population, higher rates of washing machine ownership and ever-increasing demand for clothing and fabrics made from synthetic fibres suggests a more logical place to address the issue of microplastic fibre release is at source: by adding filtration to all washing machines.

However, the solutions currently available rely on informed and engaged consumers being willing to buy aftermarket products in addition to their washing machine, with little evidence of their effectiveness or ease of use.

With approximately 840 million domestic washing machines in use globally, it is unlikely enough consumers will purchase and use aftermarket products in sufficient quantities to offer an effective solution to the issue.

Therefore, the most viable solution is the addition of effective and low cost filtration technology to all washing machines during manufacture. The technology must also be low maintenance and easy to use for the consumer.



94% of UK consumers surveyed

by Xeros would buy a washing machine

fitted with microfibre filtration



Public Research

In October 2018, Xeros conducted an online study to understand consumer opinion and attitudes with regards to microplastic pollution and washing machine filtration.

The survey, conducted across the UK, asked 1,110 members of the public several questions about the topic. Respondents comprised 824 women and 286 men; there were four age groups: 18-25 (307), 26-35 (389), 36-45 (267) and 46+ (147). The survey resulted in some useful information:

On the issue of plastic pollution, 94% of respondents expressed concern over the issue, including 27% with slight concern and 67% with a lot of concern.

When asked to identify key sources of plastic pollution from a list, one third of respondents identified microplastic fibres from clothing, indicating an increasing awareness of the issue. However, it still ranks well below sources such as plastic bottles and straws.

When asked specifically about the shedding of microplastic fibres from clothing, 57% of respondents said they “didn’t really know” that clothes containing synthetic fibres shed microplastic fibres when washed, indicating the need for greater publicity and transparency.

It also emphasises the need for widespread adoption of in-machine filtration technology and not leaving the purchase decision of after-market solutions to consumers.

The survey indicates there is significant appetite among consumers to purchase washing machines that are equipped to tackle this particular form of microplastic pollution.

It is likely that the addition of filtration technology to washing machines will increase the cost to consumers.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

No, I would notpay more for this

Yes, but onlyaround £10

Yes, up to£50 more

Yes, up to£100 more

Yes, regardlessof cost 18%

18%

39%

19%

6%

Would you be happy to pay more money for a washing machine fitted with a microfibre filter?

“Would you be happy to pay more money for a washing machine fitted with a microfibre filter?”

“Did you know that microplastics shed from synthetic clothing in the wash?”

No I really didn’t know

Yes I had heard somethinglike this before

Yes I knew this



However, the survey indicated that there is a significant degree of price elasticity, with over 75% of respondents stating that they would be happy to pay more than £50 extra for a washing machine featuring a built-in microplastic filter.

Within that, almost one in five respondents said they would be willing to pay up to £100 more, and the same number stated they would be happy to pay for in-machine filtration regardless of the cost.

The survey also indicated significant public support for politicians to introduce legislation mandating microplastic filtration technology in all new washing machines, with 62% of respondents strongly agreeing, and a further 28% slightly agreeing.



XFiltra is a filtration device based on centrifugal filtration principles. XFiltra has been designed to perform three key functions:

1. Filtration – The primary function of XFiltra is to capture microplastic fibres discharged within laundry effluent. It is complementary to the ‘coin trap’, common on all machines, which prevents larger objects exiting via the drain.

2. Pumping – The design allows XFiltra to act as a pump, removing the need for an external pump to feed in effluent, as is common with other types of filtration devices

3. De-watering – The fibres collected

in XFiltra are spun into a drier state to allow easy removal and disposal by the user

This 3-in-1 nature of XFiltra makes it a unique solution. With its ease-of-use, location within the machine and reusability, XFiltra efficiently prevents microplastic fibres from clothes being unintentionally discharged with waste water into marine environments.

The inclusion of XFiltra within the washing machine removes the need for the user to purchase, install and operate an external filter unit.

The reusable nature of XFiltra removes the need to regularly replace parts – the filter is simply emptied when full.

Solution

XFiltra



XFiltra is comprised of three main sub-assemblies: the motor and linkage, the outer housing, and the filtration cartridge.

XFiltra is low-cost and scalable, using injection-moulded parts, widely available filtration media, and a motor similar to those currently used in washing machine pumps or small household appliances.

The water influent enters XFiltra from the washing machine’s drainpipe, directly into the inner of the filtration cartridge.

The filtration cartridge is constructed of two parts, an outer cage which houses the filter media and captures microplastics, and the inner assembly which comprises a sealing

lid to contain the filtrate and an impeller moulding. This cartridge is spun at high speed, catching microfibres on the mesh filter media, and forcing water through the it’s apertures.

The effluent water then leaves through an outlet on the outer housing, directly to the drain.

The filtration cartridge is accessed by removing the outer housing lid.

When emptying, the impeller moulding has a wide base designed to easily scrape the waste from the filtration cartridge directly into household waste, without needing to be touched by the user.

XFiltra Design

XFiltra main components

XFiltra Internal cross section

Outlet

Outer Housing

Outer Housing Lid

Inlet

Motor Linkage

Motor

Filtration Cartridge



Summary

Despite a significant increase in the amount of published research on microplastics and the shedding of microplastic fibres from clothing, no standard testing method exists to allow valid comparison of different products.

For this reason, Xeros has devised its own rigorous testing method, details of which are presented in full in the Appendix.

For the purpose of testing the effectiveness of XFiltra, it was decided to use flock fibres of nylon and polyester with an average width of 15 microns (µm) and a length

of 0.5 mm. These were chosen because they closely resemble fibres released from fleece jackets.

A known amount of each fibre type was then dispersed in water at a constant temperature and hardness before being passed through XFiltra. A fitted plain-woven filtration media with pores of 10 µm was used for each. The process was repeated five times for each type of fibre.

At the end of each cycle the contents of the filter were dried and weighed. For the purpose of control, the process was repeated with no filter.

Testing demonstrated high levels of efficiency in the capture of both nylon (97%) and polyester (99%) fibres.

Performance

XFiltra Efficiency - Removal of Polyester and Nylon Flock Fibres

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Nylon

Polyester 99%

97%

Percentage Capture



Synthetic fibres are nothing new, nor is their use by industry. Nylon, for example, was first sold commercially in 1938 when it was used for toothbrush bristles, and then in 1940 in stockings.

During the second world war almost all nylon production was diverted to the military, where it was used to manufacture parachutes, aircraft tow ropes, fuel tanks, hammocks, mosquito nets flak jackets and shoelaces.

Since then nylon and other synthetic fibres like polyester have grown in popularity across the clothing industry, enabling the manufacture of new and exciting garments and specialist, technical fabrics.

Recently however, we have learned that when we clean garments that are made partly or entirely from these fibres, for example washing clothes in a washing machine, tiny fragments come off and flow into rivers and oceans around the world.

Today, these fibres constitute the largest source of primary microplastic pollution in our oceans - a surprising statistic to many.

By incorporating XFiltra into all washing machines, up to 99% of microplastic fibres can be prevented from being released into the marine environment.

XFiltra presents washing machine manufacturers with a golden opportunity to act positively, seize the initiative and place themselves at the vanguard of global efforts to tackle plastic pollution. Politicians too must understand the scope of this issue and the urgency with which it must be addressed.

Without positive, proactive moves by industry it is entirely possible that governments will act to mandate filtration technology in new machines – indeed the European Commission has already embarked on a journey to explore this.

XFiltra is a highly efficient, low cost, scalable solution to microplastic pollution from laundry. Designed to be easily incorporated into any washing machine, it offers a giant step towards a more sustainable industry and a cleaner environment.

One of the patent applications covering the workings of XFiltra was published in June 2019 (WO2019/122862). Full details can be found here: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2019122862&tab=PCTBIBLIO&_cid=P21-JXLSW8-91576-1

Conclusion


https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2019122862&tab=PCTBIBLIO&_cid=P21-JXLSW8-91576-1

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2019122862&tab=PCTBIBLIO&_cid=P21-JXLSW8-91576-1


Performance Testing DetailDespite the large increase in microplastic research and media attention over the last few years, this area of science is still in its infancy. As a result, no standard testing method yet exists to determine the degree of microplastic capture and to allow valid comparison of products.

To verify the performance of XFiltra, Xeros has created a testing method utilising widely available stock microfibres.

Nylon (nylon 6) and polyester (polyethylene terephthalate) flock microfibres were used to replicate laundry effluent containing microfibres. Both flock materials had an

Method

average diameter of 15 µm and length of 0.5 mm, with different linear mass densities of 1.5 dtex (nylon) and 3.3 dtex (polyester).

These closely emulate fibres released from fleece jackets. A known quantity of these fibres was dispersed in water and passed through XFiltra, followed by a felted, polypropylene filter bag (1 µm pore rating), to determine what was not captured.

All filter bags were dried until constant mass in an oven at 50°C, then weighed immediately, to obtain the mass in all cases.

Inlet water temperature and hardness were kept constant for all testing (<5 ppm Mg & Ca, 20°C). The XFiltra cartridge was fitted with a 10 µm, woven nylon filtration media.

Appendix

XFiltra experimental setup: first holding tank [1], ball valve [2], XFiltra [3], non-return valve [4], ball valve [5], laundry drain pump [6], second holding tank [7], drain pump [8], Pentair filter housing [9]

Influent

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

Effluent



Influent generation procedureFlock fibre was used to simulate microfibres from a laundry process. In all cases, flock (5.000 g) was weighed, using a precision balance accurate to 3 decimal places, and mixed with water (20 L) to generate microfibre influent for the tests. Nylon and polyester flock were tested separately.

BaselineA filter bag was placed into the filter housing – label [9]. Water (20 L) was added to the second holding tank [7]. The water from the second holding tank was pumped through the weighed filter bag, using pump [8]. Effluent was discharged to the local drain, having passed through the filter bag. The filter bag was removed and dried in an oven for analysis. This was repeated 5 times.

ControlA filter bag was placed into the filter housing [9]. Microfibre influent was added to the second holding tank [7]. The water from the second holding was pumped through the weighed filter bag, using pump [8]. Effluent was discharged to the local drain, having passed through the filter bag. The filter bag was removed and dried in an oven for analysis. The machine was cleaned with a rinse cycle. This was repeated 5 times.

XFiltraA filter bag was placed into the filter housing [9]. Water (20 L) was added to the first holding tank. Before adding

microfibre in the first holding tank, XFiltra was allowed time to air purge and fill with water fully. Microfibres (5.000 g) were then added to the tank and mixed to create the influent. XFiltra was then started and pumped through the inactive pump [6], into the second holding tank [7]. When the first holding tank was empty, the second drain pump was turned on to drain XFiltra fully [6]. Once it was drained, XFiltra was turned off and the non-return valve prevented water re-entering XFiltra. The drain pump [6] was then turned off. The water from the second holding tank was pumped through the weighed filter bag, using pump [8]. Effluent was discharged to the local drain. The filter bag was removed and dried in an oven for analysis. XFiltra cartridge was emptied and cleaned of debris after the test run. The machine was cleaned with a rinse cycle. This was repeated 5 times.

Analysis and DiscussionThe average mass difference of the filter bag was used to assess how much microplastic was discharged from the system, using the equation below:

me-ms=∆m

Where ms is the starting mass of the filter bag, me is the end mass of the filter bag, and Δm is the mass difference. The standard deviation of the average was also taken to assess confidence in the measurement.



BaselineA baseline was required as the filter bags used for mass difference measurements lost mass when rinsed with water. On average, new filter bags lost 0.111 g (±0.006

±1σ, 5 repeats), providing a zero point for accurate comparison.

ControlThe control experiment was designed to ensure that if 5 g of fibre was sent to drain, 5 g of fibre was collected in the filter bag. It was found that, on average, 0.128 g and 0.026 g of nylon and polyester fibre, respectively, was lost in the system and not accounted for. This was an accepted systematic error and was within the ±3σ for 5 g of fibre collection.

XFiltraThe filtered effluent flowing from XFiltra contained, on average, 0.153 g and 0.063 g of nylon and polyester microfibre, respectively, using the zero point as -0.111 g. Using the below equation, the percentage efficiency of the filter was calculated, using the control test as 100% release:

Efficiency=100×((m_c-m_x)/m_c )

Where mc is the average mass difference of the control filter bags, and mx is the average mass difference of the XFiltra filter bags.

XFiltra filtered 96.9% (±0.7%, ±3σ, 5 repeats) of nylon microfibre and 98.7% (±1.1%, ±3σ,

5 repeats) of polyester microfibre from the influent, demonstrating a high capability for fibre filtration.



Results

Table 1 – Polyester flock fibre results

Table 2 – Nylon flock fibre results

POLYESTER

XFiltra Before /g After /gDifference with

baseline adjustment /g

1 49.113 49.049 0.047

2 46.711 46.661 0.061

3 47.290 47.217 0.038

4 48.440 48.408 0.079

5 47.360 47.336 0.087

Average 0.062

Stdev 0.021

No XFiltra Before /g After /gDifference with


1 46.588 51.303 4.826

2 48.488 53.388 5.011

3 49.290 54.186 5.007

4 49.165 54.050 4.996

5 46.265 51.182 5.028

Average 4.974

Stdev 0.083

Efficiency 98.7%

NYLON

XFiltra Before /g After /gDifference with


1 48.058 48.119 0.172

2 46.961 47.002 0.152

3 47.967 48.004 0.148

4 50.332 50.360 0.139

5 47.751 47.792 0.152

Average 0.153

Stdev 0.012

No XFiltra Before /g After /gDifference with


1 46.225 51.043 4.929

2 45.713 50.421 4.819

3 47.329 52.023 4.805

4 49.240 54.052 4.923

5 48.171 52.941 4.881

Average 4.871

Stdev 0.058

Efficiency 96.9%



Bibliography1. IUCN Primary Microplastics in the Oceans: a

Global Evaluation of Sources,. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2017-002.pdf (accessed June 2019).

2. Thompson, R. C.; Swan, S. H.; Moore, C. J.; vom Saal, F. S., Our plastic age. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2009, 364 (1526), 1973-1976.

3. Napper, I. E.; Thompson, R. C., Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres from domestic washing machines: Effects of fabric type and washing conditions. Mar Pollut Bull 2016, 112 (1-2), 39-45.

4. Geyer, R.; Jambeck, J. R.; Law, K. L., Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances 2017, 3 (7), e1700782.

5. Michielssen, M. R.; Michielssen, E. R.; Ni, J.; Duhaime, M. B., Fate of microplastics and other small anthropogenic litter (SAL) in wastewater treatment plants depends on unit processes employed. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology 2016, 2 (6), 1064-1073.

6. Hartline, N. L.; Bruce, N. J.; Karba, S. N.; Ruff, E. O.; Sonar, S. U.; Holden, P. A., Microfiber Masses Recovered from Conventional Machine Washing of New or Aged Garments. Environmental Science & Technology 2016, 50 (21), 11532-11538.

7. Sussarellu, R.; Suquet, M.; Thomas, Y.; Lambert, C.; Fabioux, C.; Pernet, M. E. J.; Le Goïc, N.; Quillien, V.; Mingant, C.; Epelboin, Y.; Corporeau, C.; Guyomarch, J.; Robbens, J.; Paul-Pont, I.; Soudant, P.; Huvet, A., Oyster reproduction is affected by exposure to polystyrene microplastics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2016, 113 (9), 2430-2435.

8. Welden, N. A. C.; Cowie, P. R., Long-term microplastic retention causes reduced body condition in the langoustine, Nephrops norvegicus. Environ Pollut 2016, 218, 895-900.

9. Zhang, C.; Chen, X.; Wang, J.; Tan, L., Toxic effects of microplastic on marine microalgae Skeletonema costatum: Interactions between microplastic and algae. Environmental Pollution 2017, 220, 1282-1288.

10. Kieran D Cox; Garth A Covernton; Hailey L Davies; John F Dower; Francis Juanes & Sarah E Dudas. Human Consumption of Microplastics https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.9b01517

11. Leslie, H., Plastic in Cosmetics: Are we polluting the environment through our personal care? 2015; p 1-33.

12. House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Plastic bottles: Turning Back the Plastic Tide. https://www.sas.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Environmental-Audit-Committee’s-EAC-report-Plastic-bottles-Turning-Back-the-Plastic-Tide.pdf (accessed June 2019).

13. UNEP Plastic in cosmetics. https://wedocs.

unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/9664/-Plastic_in_cosmetics_Are_we_polluting_the_environment_through_our_personal_care_-2015Plas.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y (accessed June 2019).

14. Nizzetto, L.; Bussi, G.; Futter, M. N.; Butterfield, D.; Whitehead, P. G., A theoretical assessment of microplastic transport in river catchments and their retention by soils and river sediments. Environ Sci Process Impacts 2016, 18 (8), 1050-9.

15. Ellen MacArthur Foundation The new plastics economy. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/EllenMacArthurFoundation_NewPlasticsEconomy_26-1-2016.pdf (accessed June 2019).

16. Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark Microplastics. https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2015/10/978-87-93352-80-3.pdf (accessed June 2019).

17. Hurley, R.; Woodward, J.; Rothwell, J. J., Microplastic contamination of river beds significantly reduced by catchment-wide flooding. Nature Geoscience 2018, 11, 251-257.

18. Souza Machado, A. A.; Kloas, W.; Zarfl, C.; Hempel, S.; Rillig, M. C., Microplastics as an emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems. Global Change Biology 2018, 24 (4), 1405-1416.

19. Browne, M. A.; Crump, P.; Niven, S. J.; Teuten, E.; Tonkin, A.; Galloway, T.; Thompson, R., Accumulation of Microplastic on Shorelines Woldwide: Sources and Sinks. Environmental Science & Technology 2011, 45 (21), 9175-9179.

20. Bakir, A.; Rowland, S. J.; Thompson, R. C., Transport of persistent organic pollutants by microplastics in estuarine conditions. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 2014, 140, 14-21.

21. Peng, X.; Chen, M.; Chen, S.; Dasgupta, S.; Xu, H.; Ta, K.; Du, M.; Li, J.; Guo, Z.; Bai, S., Microplastics contaminate the deepest part of the world’s ocean. Geochemical Perspectives Letters 2018, 9, 1-5.

22. Waller, C. L.; Griffiths, H. J.; Waluda, C. M.; Thorpe, S. E.; Loaiza, I.; Moreno, B.; Pacherres, C. O.; Hughes, K. A., Microplastics in the Antarctic marine system: An emerging area of research. Science of The Total Environment 2017, 598, 220-227.

23. Wright, S. L.; Thompson, R. C.; Galloway, T. S., The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: A review. Environmental Pollution 2013, 178, 483-492.

24. Cole, M.; Lindeque, P.; Halsband, C.; Galloway, T. S., Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2011, 62 (12), 2588-2597.

25. Zettler, E. R.; Mincer, T. J.; Amaral-Zettler, L. A., Life in the “Plastisphere”: Microbial Communities on Plastic Marine Debris. Environmental Science & Technology 2013, 47 (13), 7137-7146.

26. GESAMP Sources, fate and effects of microplastics



in the marine environment: a global assessment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor-10/pdf/GESAMP_microplastics%20full%20study.pdf (accessed June 2019).

27. Browne, M. A.; Dissanayake, A.; Galloway, T. S.; Lowe, D. M.; Thompson, R. C., Ingested Microscopic Plastic Translocates to the Circulatory System of the Mussel, Mytilus edulis (L.). Environmental Science & Technology 2008, 42 (13), 5026-5031.

28. Hurley, R. R.; Woodward, J. C.; Rothwell, J. J., Ingestion of Microplastics by Freshwater Tubifex Worms. Environ Sci Technol 2017, 51 (21), 12844-12851.

29. Fredonia Synthetic polymer contamination in bottled water. https://orbmedia.org/sites/default/files/FinalBottledWaterReport.pdf (accessed June 2019).

31. House of Representatives, Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, H.R. 1321.

32. Environmental Protection (Microbeads) (England) Regulations 2017. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1312/pdfs/uksi_20171312_en.pdf (accessed June 2019).

33. HM Government A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/693158/25-year-environment-plan.pdf (accessed June 2019).

34. HM Government Gove takes action to ban plastic straws, stirrers, and cotton buds. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/gove-takes-action-to-ban-plastic-straws-stirrers-and-cotton-buds (accessed July 2019).

35. National Conference of State Legislatures State Plastic and Paper Bag Legislation. http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/plastic-bag-legislation.aspx (accessed June 2019).

36. Plastic Soup Foundation Strategy on Plastics in a Circular Economy. https://www.plasticsoupfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Letter-Plastics-Strategy-Mr-Timmermans.pdf (accessed June 2019).

37. European Comission welcomes adoption of rules on single use plastics. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_2631

38. European Commission, ‘New Rules Make Household Appliances More Sustainable’, 1 Oct 2019. https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-5895_en.htm (accessed October 2019).

39. Yang, M., Global Fibres Overview. In Synthetic Fibres Raw Materials Committee Meeting, APIC, 2014.

40. Hernandez, E.; Nowack, B.; Mitrano, D. M., Polyester Textiles as a Source of Microplastics from Households: A Mechanistic Study to Understand Microfiber Release During Washing. Environmental Science & Technology 2017, 51 (12),

7036-7046.

41. Pirc, U.; Vidmar, M.; Mozer, A.; Kržan, A., Emissions of microplastic fibers from microfiber fleece during domestic washing. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2016, 23 (21), 22206-22211.

42. Carney Almroth, B. M.; Åström, L.; Roslund, S.; Petersson, H.; Johansson, M.; Persson, N.-K., Quantifying shedding of synthetic fibers from textiles; a source of microplastics released into the environment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2018, 25 (2), 1191-1199.

43. ‘WHO calls for more research into microplastics’, 22 Aug 2019. https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/22-08-2019-who-calls-for-more-research-into-microplastics-and-a-crackdown-on-plastic-pollution (accessed October 2019)

44. Washing Machine Market Size by 2025, Grand View Research. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/press-release/global-washing-machine-market



Xeros Technology Group© Copyright Xeros 2019

Xeros, Xeros Technologies, and XFiltra are all registered trademarks of

Xeros Technology Group plc.

Unit 2 Evolution, Whittle WayAdvanced Manufacturing Park

Catcliffe, RotherhamS60 5BL

+44 (0)114 269 [email protected]

www.xerostech.com

mailto:enquiries%40xerostech.com%20?subject=XFiltra%20Whitepaper%20Follow%20Up


Documents

Addressing Microplastic Pollution from Laundry … · synthetic fibres in clothing. 2. onsumers to avoid buying clothes C containing synthetic fibres 3. ashing clothes less frequently,