Are Natural Fibers Really Better? 

The Origin of Microfibers 

In recent years, “microplastics” has become a buzzword in the media. These tiny plastic particles, typically smaller than a grain of sand, are everywhere: from the highest mountain peaks to the deepest depths of the ocean. Despite their microscopic size, microplastics have been associated with environmental problems and are increasingly being correlated with human health concerns, including inflammation, neurological disease, and cancer.  

Microplastics come in many forms: plastic fragments that break off from larger plastic products, plastic films that originate from plastic bags, foams like Styrofoam particles, and most commonly, microfibers, which come from your clothing. 

As clothing is worn and washed, tiny fibers break off from friction and wear. These microfibers then end up in waterways, soil, food, and eventually, in people.  

Microfibers: Natural vs Synthetic 

Currently, synthetic textiles dominate the clothing industry. Fabrics like polyester, spandex, and nylon are favored for affordability, accessibility, and variety of applications. However, these synthetic materials come at a much greater cost.  

When synthetic fabrics shed fibers, they are releasing microplastics into the environment. Since plastic is non-biodegradable, these fibers persist in the environment for decades, flowing through the natural world. 

A commonly proposed solution to this microplastic pollution is simply to switch to natural fibers, such as cotton or wool. While these textiles still shed fibers, they are made from compounds such as cellulose and keratin, which are found in plants and animal cells. These compounds can easily break down in the environment, seemingly limiting their effect on the natural world. 

However, natural fibers carry a whole new set of environmental concerns. Natural textiles are typically neutral, unappealing colors, highly flammable, prone to shrinking, and can even rot easily when damp. To overcome these issues, textile manufacturers treat natural fibers with dyes, flame retardants, and other chemical coatings. 

While natural fibers may biodegrade more easily, the chemical treatments applied to these textiles can still create serious concerns. Dyes, finishes, and other additives may leach toxic chemicals and heavy metals into waterways and soil, posing risks to both environmental and human health. Wrinkle-free finishes are often made from formaldehyde resins, which are classified as carcinogens and known to cause respiratory and skin irritation. Flame retardants are made with PBDEs and organophosphate FRs, which have been linked to hormone disruption and neurotoxicity. Azo dyes, which are used to make a wide array of fabric colors, cause skin irritation and are potential carcinogens that are difficult to filter from wastewater. Treatments also commonly contain plastics like PFAS, silicones, and waxes, which prevent the breakdown of natural microfibers and further contribute to lasting microfiber pollution. 

Additionally, natural textiles have been shown to shed fibers at higher rates than synthetic materials, raising questions about whether natural fiber release may pose a greater threat than synthetic fiber release. 

What’s Better?

With every new garment, wear, and load of laundry, millions of microfibers are released into the environment. From there, both synthetic and natural microfibers disperse to every corner of the world, posing a risk to their surroundings and to public health.  

No single textile choice will fully solve microfiber pollution. Because both synthetic and natural fabrics shed fibers, reducing microfiber release at the source is one of the most effective ways to limit environmental exposure. 

The CLEANR microplastic filter for washing machines catches 90%+ of microfibers, both synthetic and natural, down to 50 microns before they can enter the environment.  

Sources

1. Athey, S. N., Carney Almroth, B., Granek, E. F., Hurst, P., Tissot, A. G., & Weis, J. S. (2022). Unraveling physical and chemical effects of textile microfibers. Water, 14(23), 3797. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14233797 

1. Negi, A. (2025). Environmental impact of textile materials: Challenges in fiber–dye chemistry and implication of microbial biodegradation. Polymers, 17(7), 871. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym17070871 

1. Periyasamy, A. P. (2025). Functionalized textile microplastics: A closer look at the issues, strategy, and legislation on the microplastic reduction. Kuwait Journal of Science, 52(3), 100395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjs.2025.100395 

1. Toxicity of azo dyes in fashion industry. (2025, September 26). Life TechnologyTM. https://www.lifetechnology.com/blogs/life-technology-science-news/toxicity-of-azo-dyes-in-fashion-industry 

1. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). Formaldehyde. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/formaldehyde.pdf 

1. Zambrano, M. C., Pawlak, J. J., Daystar, J., Ankeny, M., Cheng, J. J., & Venditti, R. A. (2019). Microfibers generated from the laundering of cotton, rayon and polyester based fabrics and their aquatic biodegradation. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 142, 394–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.02.062