Could microfiber cloth be toxic?

[kenny1999]

I happened to see a line of text on Google with knowledge I didn't know.

Yes, microfiber can be toxic. It's made from polyester and other synthetic materials that can release chemicals, such as phthalates and formaldehyde, into the air.

I know that microfiber is very commonly used in daily life. If it is toxic, why do people keep using it? Does this only happen under extreme stress on the microfiber?

 

[pinball1970]

I happen to see a line of text on Google with knowledge I didn't know.

Microfiber can be toxic. It's made from polyester and other synthetic materials that can release chemicals, such as phthalates and formaldehyde, into the air.

I know that microfiber is very commonly used in daily life. If it is toxic, why people keep using it? Does this only happen under extreme stress on the microfiber?

Micro fibre is just a reference to the thickness of the yarn not chemicals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microfiber

The chemicals you mentioned are used in the industry but are restricted.

You can search here https://echa.europa.eu/tools-for-the-textile-industry

Brexit have changed a few things for the UK regarding regulatory chemical

 

[Jarvis323]

Regulations depend on which country you're in. In the US, phthalates are present in all kinds of things that we're exposed to, including our clothes and food. Maybe even your facemask.

Potentially harmful chemicals that were banned from children’s teething rings and rubber duck toys a decade ago may still be present in high concentrations in your child’s favorite meal: macaroni and cheese mixes made with powdered cheese.

The chemicals, called phthalates, can disrupt male hormones like testosterone and have been linked to genital birth defects in infant boys and learning and behavior problems in older children. The chemicals migrate into food from packaging and equipment used in manufacturing and may pose special risks to pregnant women and young children.

The Food and Drug Administration has not banned their presence in foods, though a 2014 report to the Consumer Product Safety Commission urged federal agencies to assess risks “with a view to supporting risk management steps.” The report concluded that food, drugs and beverages, and not toys, were the primary source of exposure to phthalates.

...

Phthalates are not deliberately added to food. They are industrial chemicals used to soften plastics and are used as solvents, in adhesives and in ink on packaging.
The chemicals migrate into food from food processing equipment like plastic tubing, conveyor belts and gaskets and other plastic materials used in the manufacturing process, and can also seep in from printed labels or plastic materials in the packaging.
Since they bind with fats, they tend to build up in fatty foods, including not just cheese but baked goods, infant formula, meats, oils and fats, and fast food, studies show.

Europe has banned many phthalates from use in plastics that come into contact with fatty foods, including baby food, but the F.D.A. allows the use of many phthalates in such materials and classifies them as indirect food additives.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/12/well/eat/the-chemicals-in-your-mac-and-cheese.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/toxic-chemicals-in-clothes-cancer-2019-7
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34403943/

 

[Rive]

Regarding microfibers, the potential chemical toxicity is just one part of the whole picture.

I don't really like the whole microplastic hysteria but there is one aspect where it is relevant, and that is when it is inhaled. In general, all inhaled (solid) particles should be considered harmful, and (decomposing/degrading) microfibers are a very rich source of them.

So, regarding low quality or overused or cloth masks it is a concern and should be considered.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

I know that microfiber is very commonly used in daily life. If it is toxic, why people keep using it? Does this only happen under extreme stress on the microfiber?

Everything is toxic at high enough concentrations, even water. So, the question is not necessarily whether they contain/release potentially harmful substances, but what are the levels of exposure and are these levels sufficient to cause negative health outcomes?

More data is needed in this thread to substantiate these claims.

 

[pinball1970]

Everything is toxic at high enough concentrations, even water. So, the question is not necessarily whether they contain/release potentially harmful substances, but what are the levels of exposure and are these levels sufficient to cause negative health outcomes?

More data is needed in this thread to substantiate these claims.

Yes. I can only speak for the UK and the EU but that is how legislation on restricted chemicals in production works.
The more 'toxic' a chemical is thought to be (based on case studies, ECHA technical files,) the lower the concentration/% by weight is set.

This is how the SVHC in Articles (textiles, toys, consumer goods) work.

REACh was an attempt to harmonize all the restricted / banned lists into one system.

DETOX/ZDHC Also works in this way but instead of looking at the products themselves they look at what the factories are using in production. They do this mainly via waste water and sludge testing.
Specifically, heavy metals, phthalates, banned Azo dyes and other restricted chemicals.

Fibres is a strange one. Breathing in lose fibre is hazardous the same way breathing coal dust is. That's why we have strict PPE in spinning and weaving mills.
However something like microfiber (and plastic) does not break down very well so it ends up in landfill. Recycling is one way to reduce waste but that fibre has a greater surface area and particles that come away are smaller. The particles end up in the water/fish and us along with the chemicals.
I have provided no links (on my tablet) happy to later.
Edit: https://www.roadmaptozero.com/?locale=en

This is the European Chemical Agency site with respect to restricted chemicals. This list is added to every 6 months.
End columns have technical files associated with that specific Chemical.

https://echa.europa.eu/candidate-list-table

Cotton is more harmful to the environment than to us because it is a very water greedy plant.
Recycled polyester has issues too. https://www.commonobjective.co/article/is-recycled-polyester-green-or-greenwashing

 

[kenny1999]

Regarding microfibers, the potential chemical toxicity is just one part of the whole picture.

I don't really like the whole microplastic hysteria but there is one aspect where it is relevant, and that is when it is inhaled. In general, all inhaled (solid) particles should be considered harmful, and (decomposing/degrading) microfibers are a very rich source of them.

So, regarding low quality or overused or cloth masks it is a concern and should be considered.

Did you mean microfiber product is only harmful when it is decomposed/degraded/broken down into tiny solids and goes into our lungs, but in normal case, it is not harmful?

 

[pinball1970]

Did you mean microfiber product is only harmful when it is decomposed/degraded/broken down into tiny solids and goes into our lungs, but in normal case, it is not harmful?

How would degraded microfiber get into your lungs?
If you are a textile worker then you take precautions and regular checks as per any production worker where particulate / aerosols are a hazard.
An issue last century. Not so much now.
https://oem.bmj.com/content/60/12/935

 

[Rive]

Did you mean microfiber product is only harmful when it is decomposed/degraded/broken down into tiny solids and goes into our lungs, but in normal case, it is not harmful?

I can't vouch for every microfiber products, but in everyday life (in a 'civilized' country with effective measures to ensure the usage of safe materials) you are expected to have far more chance to inhale fibers than being poisoned by chemicals originating from them.

Laundry lint (google it!) is considered a major microplastic source for waters, but it is also just flying around in the air as somebody just moving around, taking up/down clothes or just: sleeping. Usually this is not really a big concern since the density is low, but with cloth masks in play it might be different: not all fabrics are OK for this usage.

Of course since it is always flying around we also ingest it on food (and with the self-cleaning of the lungs too). However, regardless the hysteria the actual harms of this kind of ingestion is questionable (for humans, that is).

So my answer is 'yes', with some shades.

 

[pinball1970]

I can't vouch for every microfiber products, but in everyday life (in a 'civilized' country with effective measures to ensure the usage of safe materials) you are expected to have far more chance to inhale fibers than being poisoned by chemicals originating from them.

Laundry lint (google it!) is considered a major microplastic source for waters, but it is also just flying around in the air as somebody just moving around, taking up/down clothes or just: sleeping. Usually this is not really a big concern since the density is low, but with cloth masks in play it might be different: not all fabrics are OK for this usage.

Of course since it is always flying around we also ingest it on food (and with the self-cleaning of the lungs too). However, regardless the hysteria the actual harms of this kind of ingestion is questionable (for humans, that is).

So my answer is 'yes', with some shades.

Some shades?

 

[Rive]

Too complex but very 'hot' issue with many not so well established answers and a too general question. So my 'yes' required a 'but there is a rabbit hole below' warning.
The idiom (shades) might not be accurate in English. Sorry about that.

 

[pinball1970]

Too complex but very 'hot' issue with many not so well established answers and a too general question. So my 'yes' required a 'but there is a rabbit hole below' warning.
The idiom (shades) might not be accurate in English. Sorry about that.

Hi Rive
Do you mean colour? Navy Beige White? Colour of the cloth involved?

 

[Rive]

Colour of the cloth involved?

No, it's about the answer possibly not being entirely 'white': there is more to it, with possible alternative interpretations or questionable details.

Really sorry for the confusion.

 

[chemisttree]

More data is needed in this thread to substantiate these claims.

Mark Browne has reported on this. Perfluorooctyl sulfonate and perfluorooctanoates currently have an advisory level in drinking water of 70 parts per trillion or 0.070 ppb. If these synthetics are capable of adsorbing and concentrating this class of PFAS compounds it could be a problem for marine life.

RIVE, one english word that might be appropriate instead of “shades” would be “caveats”.