From Closet to Catastrophe: The Climate-Driven Spread of Textile Contaminants 

by yaleglobalhealthreview, posted in Uncategorized

BY DAVID WOODS

The textile industry is commonly criticized for its excessive water consumption and landfill waste, but it is often underestimated as a contributing factor to adverse public health impacts and negative environmental consequences. Textiles have become embedded in the human identity in a way that cannot be undone. Textiles are what make up our clothes, our bedding, and our home goods; they’re in the construction of our houses, cars, and workplaces; in short, they are unavoidable.1 

Yet, what really sets these textiles apart when it comes to underestimating human health risks is the fact that, largely, we do not know what chemicals are used in their production or how these unidentified chemicals react with our immune, digestive, endocrine, respiratory, circulatory, or reproductive systems in either the short or long term,2  and thus we run into a paradox. 

That is, textiles appear to increase our quality and ease of living through their seemingly endless innovation and new properties (take into consideration ultraviolet-blocking shirts, moisture-wicking, antibacterial headbands, or abrasion-resistant work pants). But it is only through the synthesis of harmful textile additives meant to enhance product performance that these goals are accomplished. The interactions between these chemical additives, humans, and the environment is so often overlooked and even harder to translate into a regulatory framework.3 Textile manufacturers have been able to research and develop new products practically without restriction since the introduction of plastics and other petroleum-based products as ‘wonder materials’ nearly five decades ago.4 But where does this leave us today? 

Today, seven different kinds of plastics have been identified that contribute to the detectable presence of microplastics in the environment. Specifically, they are polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS), polyurethane (PUR), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and polycarbonate (PC),5 all of which have the ability to negatively impact living organisms through pathways including inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact.1 

To make matters worse, these kinds of plastics only represent broad categories meant to describe the arrangement and composition of what are in reality hundreds, if not thousands, of slightly different polymers that are continually produced to fulfill different manufacturing goals, often at the expense of transparency with consumers, as textile companies seek the most economically viable (cheapest) material to make a synthetic fiber that will perform the same duty as a more expensive alternative. 

Further concern exists over the release of chemical additives that supplement these already dangerous polymers,6 which perhaps uncoincidentally also fit into characteristically broad categories, like the phthalates, bisphenols, organophosphates, and biocides that pose significant human health risks or the brominated flame retardants and chlorinated paraffins that have demonstrated persistence and bioaccumulative properties. Indeed, the textile industry magnifies the risks posed by exposure to both these plastics and their chemical additives by orders of magnitude due to the high ratio of surface area of microplastic-laden fibers compared to the mass of a garment.7 

The PET that is often used to produce polyester, a common synthetic polymer fiber that can be mass-produced relatively affordably through an energy-intensive plastic extrusion process, has been found to pose human health risk through three main pathways: respiratory impedance (i.e. asthma, and allergic reactions), reproductive inhibition, and carcinogenicity. As PET ages naturally, it releases different chemicals, known as phthalate esters (PAEs), that were used in the production to make the fabric either softer or more flexible. 

Further laboratory tests have also shown that these PAEs can exhibit anti-androgenic effects by altering anti-thyroid effects and testosterone synthesis.8 In 2019, the United States Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) found that antimony (Sb), a common chemical element released from PET, has adverse effects on the cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, pancreatic, digestive (liver), and nervous systems.9 

With regards to the distribution of this health risk, the unfortunate reality is that our most vulnerable populations are exposed to these harmful substances (and the ones we haven’t even been able to identify and regulate as of yet) more often than others. Specifically, the aforementioned PAEs are found in more plastics than just PET; the PVC prints that are often used to produce the graphics on children’s clothing have been found to contain high quantities of

toxic material, as have bisphenol-laced socks and undergarments.10 According to a study conducted by Maya Negev and colleagues in 2018, the mean levels of PAEs in baby textiles and textile products (such as mattresses and clothing), exceeded the 0.1% composition standard set by the European Union11 by egregious margins of 6.74% DEHP and 1.32% DINP, both of which are phthalates that can cause significant health issues.12 

Microplastic textiles provide more economical alternatives to more expensive materials, thereby passing the savings off to the customer, in some regards. But, in another sense, this tactic makes it such that less financially-endowed consumers have limited access to textiles not produced in this ‘plasticized’ manner, which really only serves as a positive feedback mechanism for generating additional sales and exacerbating extant concerns about the quality of life of the less-fortunate. So, why not do something differently? The reality is that we have to. 

Rising global temperatures are not merely accelerating pollution—they are transforming its very nature. Extreme heat aerosolizes microplastics, intensifies volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, and ultimately concentrates toxic textile runoff in ways that disproportionately impact already vulnerable communities. And yet, when we talk about climate change and pollution, our focus is often on carbon emissions, melting ice caps, or deforestation. We rarely think about the fact that the very clothes we wear are shifting from passive to active pollutants under extreme environmental conditions. 

Regulatory frameworks, like the EU’s Circular Economy Action Plan, the REACH directive, and the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, were designed for a world where pollution followed predictable pathways. But climate change and the unpredictability of extreme weather events, as evidenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth

Assessment Report, which outlines more frequent and prolonged heat waves, changes in extreme precipitation patterns, and stronger, more destructive storms, is greatly complicating those assumptions. If we want to have any hope of mitigating this crisis, we need to rethink the very foundations of how we regulate textile pollution, but that’s not so easy when we don’t necessarily understand the problem. 

Synthetic textiles like polyester, nylon, and acrylic—which are ubiquitous in fabric blends meant to enhance the performance standards of different purpose-made garments—shed microplastics throughout their lifecycle: during production, wear, washing, and disposal. Normally, these fibers accumulate in water and soil to the point where microplastics can be found on nearly every surface of our planet.13 But under extreme circumstances, fabric degrades faster. 

Let’s slow down for a minute. It’s not like our planet is going to turn into a pressure cooker overnight. However, with this year’s measurement of mean global temperature being 1.5 degrees centigrade higher the 1850-1900 average,14 a checkpoint that climate scientists and activists alike have long recognized as necessary to avert the worst impacts of climate change, public awareness of climate-related impacts is sure to rise. 

But what does that mean for most of us specifically? Likely more heat-related protections and, inevitably, more sweating. We’re going to become more careful about remembering to lather our bodies with titanium dioxide or zinc oxide (sunscreen) before leaving home so we don’t get burned from being outside. We’re going to release more salts and minerals (sweat) that will catalyze the breakdown of our plastic-infused, often completely synthetic swimming shorts or lightweight, breathable tank tops. We’re going to expose our clothing to more mechanical abrasion from increased laundering cycles. And, even worse, recent studies show that these microplastics are not just clinging to our bodies and the surfaces of our indoor living spaces; they are becoming airborne, particularly in urban and industrial areas where high temperatures facilitate their release.15 

The implications are vast: inhaled microplastics pose respiratory risks, while their accumulation in the atmosphere contributes to broader climate effects by interacting with contaminants, like persistent organic pollutants (POPs).16 Without targeted mitigation strategies, urban centers will experience increasing concentrations of airborne microplastics, exacerbating health disparities in already vulnerable populations. 

Consider textile production hubs in South Asia, where monsoon-driven flooding is intensifying due to climate change. These floods don’t just displace communities—they also spread textile effluents, poisoning water supplies for entire regions. This isn’t just an environmental crisis; it’s a public health emergency. 

In a study completed in 2024 on the impacts of textile waste pollution in Dhaka, Bangladesh, a hub for textile manufacturing, the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a Swedish non-profit public interest group, found textiles to be a significant source of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pollution in waterways. 

Specifically, PFAS were detected in 27 of 31 surface water samples (87%), and of those, 18 (67%) contained globally banned PFAS chemicals like PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS. The highest PFAS concentrations—detected in the Karnatali River in 2019—were over 300 times the proposed EU limit. Alarmingly, three out of four tap water samples tested above the U.S. PFOA threshold for drinking water (4 ng/L). The study also found PFAS in all five clothing items sampled, including a men’s jacket containing the banned chemical PFOA. 

If contamination is already disproportionately impacting low-income, market-driven communities that have heightened exposure risks—think of those that rely on untreated wells for drinking water in places like Dhaka, what happens as climate change accelerates the redistribution and concentration of these chemicals? How many more communities will face unsafe levels of contamination? What more can be done from a regulatory perspective? And why do banned chemicals still appear in newly manufactured and sold items?

The answer lies, in part, in outdated and inadequate regulatory frameworks. 

The Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) is the main regulation that protects human health and the environment from the risks that can be posed by chemicals in the European Union.17 And to its credit, it has identified a host of different chemicals that are restricted for use. 

But this list of restricted substances only includes thirty-three entries, and each of them have associated limits of concentration by weight that would render their restriction moot when the sheer magnitude of textiles on the market and in deadstock are taken into account. Furthermore, Annex XVII of REACH, which identifies the restrictions to be placed on textile manufacturing, stipulates an explicit clause that renders “second-hand clothing, related accessories, [and] textiles other than clothing or footwear”17to be exempt from the list of restricted substances. 

The situation in America does not elicit much more optimism, as the United States has traditionally trailed behind the European Union in regulating substances and developing legislation centered around the preemptive prohibition of potentially toxic chemicals. Specifically, the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), even after the Lautenberg Amendment, which give the EPA the ability to revise the process and requirements for evaluating and determining whether regulatory control is warranted for manufacturing, distributing, processing, using, and disposing of chemicals, fails to address the cumulative effects of climate-driven chemical redistribution. Indeed, one of the most blatant oversights of both of these regulatory frameworks is the lack of classification for textile-derived pollutants as waterborne toxins. 

Because many textile contaminants are being restricted on a one-at-a-time basis which often does not include the salts and isomers of specific chemicals, many of the most pressing pollutants evade stringent regulation, allowing climate change’s increased heat and shifting weather patterns alter pollution pathways in ways that are presently unknown and virtually unchecked. As climate change intensifies the movement and concentration of these chemicals, policy inaction will only widen the gap between science and governance. 

The rising temperatures, intensified precipitation, and shifting weather patterns that the IPCC has and continues to document makes it such that it is increasingly difficult for the scientific community to make predictions about the rates at which certain textile microfibers aerosolize, either directly from our clothing or in the evaporating effluent generated from laundering our garments. 

If pollution and contaminant thresholds continue to operate on rigid frameworks that don’t reflect the variable nature of our current environmental and human health situation, they risk becoming meaningless. Worse, emissions reporting requirements often rely on lab-based simulations that fail to capture real-world variability. Without mandatory monitoring of pollutants under climate-stressed conditions—heatwaves, monsoons, and droughts—regulatory enforcement will remain weak and allow companies to operate in a virtual data vacuum. 

Even when use restrictions and prohibitions exist, they are only as effective as their enforcement. Too often, penalties for noncompliance are negligible when compared to the money-making potential companies access. Holding corporations accountable means closing these loopholes, enforcing real consequences, and expanding liability mechanisms to address climate-driven pollution redistribution. 

It also means recognizing that major brands cannot outsource their environmental responsibility to suppliers, turning a blind eye to toxic waste dumped into the rivers of Dhaka or Guangzhou, where the World Bank found 30 chemicals specifically originating from textile dyeing and treatment that cannot be removed.18 Supply chain due diligence laws, modeled after existing human rights legislation, could ensure that pollution accountability follows products from manufacturing to market. The reality is clear: the conversation cannot be about banning individual chemicals in isolation but must shift toward proactive, climate-responsive policies that anticipate the movement and concentration of pollutants in a warming world. Without this shift, regulation will always lag behind, and the communities most affected will continue to be the least protected.

David Woods is a junior in Timothy Dwight College.

——————————

References

  1. Ageel, H. K., Harrad, S. & Abdallah, M. A.-E. Occurrence, human exposure, and risk of microplastics in the indoor environment. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 24, 17–31 (2022).
  2. Chen, Y., Chen, Q., Zhang, Q., Zuo, C. & Shi, H. An Overview of Chemical Additives on (Micro)Plastic Fibers: Occurrence, Release, and Health Risks. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 260, 22 (2022).
  3. Undas, A. K., Groenen, M., Peters, R. J. B. & Van Leeuwen, S. P. J. Safety of recycled plastics and textiles: Review on the detection, identification and safety assessment of contaminants. Chemosphere 312, 137175 (2023).
  4. Betts, B. F. Synthetic Plastics: Wonder Material of the Chemical Laboratory and Industry, Destined for Many Uses in Building Construction. Am. Sav. Loan News 61, 212–216 (1941).
  5. Li, W. C., Tse, H. F. & Fok, L. Plastic waste in the marine environment: A review of sources, occurrence and effects. Sci. Total Environ. 566–567, 333–349 (2016).
  6. Militký, J., Novotná, J., Wiener, J., Křemenáková, D. & Venkataraman, M. Microplastics and Fibrous Fragments Generated during the Production and Maintenance of Textiles. Fibers 12, 51 (2024).
  7. Cui, H. & Xu, C. Study on the Relationship between Textile Microplastics Shedding and Fabric Structure. Polymers 14, 5309 (2022).
  8. Isci, G. & Dagdemir, E. Human health risk assessment of phthalate esters and antimony levels in beverages packaged in polyethylene terephthalate under different storage conditions. J. Food Compos. Anal. 126, 105922 (2024).
  9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for antimony and compounds. (2019).
  10. Tang, Z., Chai, M., Wang, Y. & Cheng, J. Phthalates in preschool children’s clothing manufactured in seven Asian countries: Occurrence, profiles and potential health risks. J. Hazard. Mater. 387, 121681 (2020).
  11. Regulation (EU) 2020/878 Amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council Concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH).
  12. Negev, M. et al. Concentrations of trace metals, phthalates, bisphenol A and flame-retardants in toys and other children’s products in Israel. Chemosphere 192, 217–224 (2018).
  13. Ziani, K. et al. Microplastics: A Real Global Threat for Environment and Food Safety: A State of the Art Review. Nutrients 15, 617 (2023).
  14. World Meteorological Organization (WMO). State of the Global Climate 2024. (2025).
  15. Athey, S. N. & Erdle, L. M. Are We Underestimating Anthropogenic Microfiber Pollution? A Critical Review of Occurrence, Methods, and Reporting. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 41, 822–837 (2022).
  16. Campanale, C., Massarelli, C., Savino, I., Locaputo, V. & Uricchio, V. F. A Detailed Review Study on Potential Effects of Microplastics and Additives of Concern on Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 17, 1212 (2020).
  17. Regulation (EU) 2018/1513 of 10 October 2018 Amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council Concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as Regards Certain Substances Classified as Carcinogenic, Mutagenic or Toxic for Reproduction (CMR), Category 1A or 1B. (2018).
  18. World Bank Group. China Country Climate and Development Report.

Leave a comment