Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37224145›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Impact of vented and condenser tumble dryers on waterborne and airborne microfiber pollution.

Amber M Cummins, Adam K Malekpour, Andrew J Smith, Suzanne Lonsdale, John R Dean, Neil J Lant

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Amber M CumminsDepartment of Applied Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0249-4433
Adam K MalekpourProcter & Gamble, Newcastle Innovation Center, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Andrew J SmithProcter & Gamble, Newcastle Innovation Center, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Suzanne LonsdaleDepartment of Applied Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3361-1388
John R DeanDepartment of Applied Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5729-356X
Neil J LantProcter & Gamble, Newcastle Innovation Center, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5939-0125

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laundering of textiles is a significant source of waterborne microfiber pollution, and solutions are now being sought to mitigate this issue including improvements in clothing technology and integration of filtration systems into washing machines. Vented tumble dryers are a potential source of airborne microfiber pollution, as their built-in lint filtration systems have been found to be inefficient with significant quantities of textile microfibers being released to the external environment through their exhaust air ducts. The present study is the first to evaluate the impact of condenser dryers, finding that they are significant contributors to waterborne microfiber pollution from the lint filter (if users clean this with water), the condenser and the condensed water. Microfiber release from drying of real consumer loads in condenser and vented tumble dryers was compared, finding that real loads release surprisingly high levels of microfibers (total 341.5 ± 126.0 ppm for those dried in a condenser dryer and 256.0 ± 74.2 ppm for those dried in a vented dryer), similar in quantity to microfibers produced during the first highly-shedding drying cycle of a new T-shirt load (total 321.4 ± 11.2 ppm) in a condenser dryer. Vented dryers were found to be significant contributors to waterborne microfiber pollution if consumers clean the lint filter with water in accordance with some published appliance usage instructions, as most (86.1 ± 5.5% for the real consumer loads tested) of the microfibers generated during vented tumble drying were collected on the lint filter. Therefore, tumble dryers are a significant source of waterborne and (for vented dryers) airborne microfiber pollution. While reducing the pore size of tumble dryer lint filters and instructing consumers to dispose of fibers collected on lint filters as municipal solid waste could help reduce the issue, more sophisticated engineering solutions will likely be required to achieve a more comprehensive solution.

Indexed as

DesiccationEnvironmental PollutionEngineeringSolid WasteWaterSolid WasteWater

Identifiers

PMID37224145
PMCPMC10208492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.