Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

spambearpig t1_j6me8ui wrote

Considering this is a coating that will eventually wear off I’m not sure I can fully agree with this statement.

“Our research is pushing in a different direction, where we actually solve the problem rather than putting a Band-Aid on the issue.”

I think actually solving the problem is one where our clothes are made out of things that aren’t harmful to the environment.

Not to say this isn’t very positive and reducing a problem vastly is great. But a coating that will wear off over years is pretty much a Band-Aid.

Does it not mean that your clothes become less environmentally friendly the longer you keep them?

But making your clothes last a long time is in itself, environmentally friendly.

Not quite solved when it’s like that.

523

OfLittleToNoValue t1_j6moif1 wrote

"we fixed the problem by causing another problem" is kinda our thing.

Why use sustainable cotton when you can make a synthetic coating to slow down oil based plastics from degrading?

We are not a smart species. This just sounds like the next PFAS in 20 years

252

yoortyyo t1_j6mt4mx wrote

Wool is the only natural fiber used in cold, wet extremes. Synthetic insulation, wind and waterproofing are beyond dominant in that area.
Alternatives ate needed. PFC free waterproof breathable is out but niche so far.

Tldr. Cotton kills in cold & wet. Synthetics need sustainable fabrics that match synthetic’s qualities.

62

Zoomwafflez t1_j6n2frs wrote

While it's true synthetics get used a lot for outdoor clothing it's mostly a cost factor. There is no widely used insulation that's as good as down, there is no better shell material imo than wool. (Water resistant, maintaining 70% of it's insulation value when wet, durable, and flame retardant) Natural materials are heavier and more expensive though

15

wrsndede t1_j6num2a wrote

I wouldn't call wool water resistant. It wicks moisture and insulates even when wet. That's why it's a good base & mid layer, but not good as an outer shell.

16

yoortyyo t1_j6nvxl5 wrote

I would have to see real studies. I’ve been climbing, skiing and living outdoors my whole life. Newest fabrics are by far and away superior for outer layers and insulation often too. Even treated down fails before a synthetic

5

degmac113 t1_j6nfvur wrote

Hemp too. It's a pretty strong fabric, the plant grows relatively fast compared to cotton, and it uses less water as well

14

yoortyyo t1_j6nwr22 wrote

So far few outdoor performers from that fabric.
Again my position is research and development. I hate the footprint the best gear creates. I’m outside in non optional times and once your 7 miles out….

5

OfLittleToNoValue t1_j6mtdq6 wrote

What good is water proof clothing if it poisons the water and everything in it or feeds off it?

5

StormlitRadiance t1_j6nbzyb wrote

Bruh. if it's the difference between dying today of cold and dying of chemicals in a few decades, I'll take it.

10

uniquedifferences t1_j6nww9k wrote

Yeah, think of the billions of people who died, freezing in the cold, before we invented chemicals and plastics!

Dumping chemicals and plastic in the ocean is worth sacrificing tens of thousands of species of creatures, plants, and fungus, and billions of people.

Thank you for saving us all!

0

yoortyyo t1_j6nxkd0 wrote

Seal bladder clothes amd mukluks were the standard. Animals died by the trillions outfitting humans against cold. The lack of most mega fauna illustrates the challenges.

Alternative materials are needed.

The bulk of Goretex never goes outdoors. Just like SUV and trucks. Clothing is a status and fashion choice to talk to those around us.

4

uniquedifferences t1_j6pg2v7 wrote

We can make clothing in more environmentally friendly ways so we don't have to kill off everything that sustains us. We can all stop being ridiculous.

1

OfLittleToNoValue t1_j6nd79u wrote

Cool, so you're both short sighted and willing to harm others for your convenience.

−11

Zncon t1_j6nwoof wrote

Well the alternative is to round up a few billion people living in seasonally cold climates and move them closer to the equator.

3

Leafstride t1_j6n9r9i wrote

I love wool but I really wish it was more durable.

5

never3nder_87 t1_j6nu2qn wrote

Bamboo ticks a lot of the same boxes for me

6

Leafstride t1_j6nxlq2 wrote

Rayon is alright though I think lyocell is better than rayon since it's a bit more durable when wet. I'm currently a fan of wool/lyocell/nylon combo fabrics. You just can't be throwing them in a dryer.

3

podolot t1_j6nddpl wrote

Yep, in 20 years we will talking about super coating PFAs that are 10x more harmful.

56

ThaGerm1158 t1_j6nvtn2 wrote

An active individual can easily answer that question. Cotton sucks for many strenuous activities, period.

If you live in the north and are going hiking up a mountain through the snow, it can kill you. I leave in an hour to do just that. I will often put a cotton layer on in between synthetic layers, but that will usually come off as I get warm and it's always soaked. As long as you keep moving, you're fine. Get lost (and run out of calories or energy) or injured, and you can go into hypothermia in under an hour above 20f and significantly faster if there is wind or if it's any colder.

There has been some real improvement in wool products, and I'm switching over to products like Smartwool where I can.

To the "band aid" comments. No, it's not a silver bullet. Yes, we need to do better. Yes, it's better than doing nothing. Yes, this could be a step in the right direction.

Finally, it's early. Do we know if this process could become an at-home application? Then, you could reapply as needed and even retroactively apply to products that didn't include it initially.

5

Temassi t1_j6o1tgd wrote

Everyone going around making perfect the enemy of good.

3

asdaaaaaaaa t1_j6nby45 wrote

> Not to say this isn’t very positive and reducing a problem vastly is great. But a coating that will wear off over years is pretty much a Band-Aid.

Not if you're a company who advertises it as "environmentally safe" and reaps the profits unfortunately. I can see this being used in that way, and this is a perfect advertisement for that. As you said, doesn't really "help" the environment or problem at all aside from making things last a bit longer before they start shedding microplastics. Doesn't mean a company won't use this with manipulative advertising.

I mean, it's been what humanity as a whole has been doing forever. We discover some amazing perfect new solution and invest heavily, until 20 years later we learn it's not as good/safe as we initially thought.

5

StormlitRadiance t1_j6nbrvc wrote

It sounds like you're saying that doubling the life of our clothes isn't worth it because we can't make them last forever.

This is a plan that will result in a significant reduction of microplastic in washwater, even if the coating eventually does wear off.

1

Menthalion t1_j6novqo wrote

Seeing people in the west on average ditch clothing after wearing them for just half a year, and that clothing in majority contains synthetic fibres, I don't see what doubling the life will bring for most of the clothes. Your subarctic needs are completely insignificant in this scheme.

9

gellenburg t1_j6n2kxx wrote

And in 5 years we'll discover that coating causes cancer.

117

thulesgold t1_j6nqd38 wrote

Reminds me of the flame retardant chemicals sprayed on children's clothing and couches...

16

abotoe t1_j6nxake wrote

Considering the chemical in question, PDMS, is already widespread in food, shampoos, cosmetics, textiles etc. and we have most likely already have been in practically constant contact with it since we were born- that would suck... The novel aspect of this coating is how it is applied, not what it is made from.

10

roo-ster t1_j6monx7 wrote

Better solution: Don’t make plastic clothing fibers.

58

Dominoscraft t1_j6mrty1 wrote

This ^^ let’s go back to 100% Cotten and our clothes will last longer. In the past ~15 years in U.K. any decent clothing company was bought and the company moth balled to cut out competition. Now it’s just flimsy clothing that stars to get holes in after 20 washes

16

StormlitRadiance t1_j6nd1ue wrote

A cultural shift is required. People don't *want* their clothes to last a long time. Various marketing efforts over the past hundred years have convinced us to care about fast fashion.

There was a time when "fashion" was just for fops and dandies. In order for sustainable clothing to be a thing, we need to return to that attitude.

12

sock-opera t1_j6oil3s wrote

I don’t think it’s that simple because the alternatives have environmental issues as well. For example, cotton is very carbon and water intensive (organic even more so) for the amount of times you can use it before it breaks down (see: cotton vs plastic shopping bags). Presumably recycled plastic clothing is less carbon intensive than cotton.

Textile production accounts for about 10% of carbon emissions. I’m not sure we currently have a good way to compare the negative externalities of additional carbon footprint and micro plastic pollution.

I think the ideal solution likely involves consumers keeping their clothing for longer, purchasing more durable clothing and not participating in “fast fashion”.

Don’t get me wrong, I prefer cotton and wool. Synthetics also have their place in many speciality and sporting applications. I believe main issue is the sheer scale of consumption and waste that we encourage in a consumer economy.

If anyone knows about the carbon footprint of wool, hemp or alternative textiles I would be curious to hear.

3

Hefty_Tendy t1_j6p1nnt wrote

Fast fashion is probably not going anywhere any time soon. Between carbon emissions and microplastics, we at least have a solution for the former. If we can continue transitioning to renewable energy, it won’t matter how much energy textile production uses. But plastic will still be taking up space in our landfills and water.

1

FreeQ t1_j6nevbx wrote

Or don’t buy them

2

roo-ster t1_j6nhozv wrote

People who don’t buy them still get micro plastics in their food and water.

Ban them.

6

DippyHippy420 t1_j6n1ld9 wrote

God forbid that we just use renewable natural fibers for clothing and stop dressing in unhealthy plastic.

49

StormlitRadiance t1_j6nc740 wrote

Who can afford that?

−1

FreeQ t1_j6nl847 wrote

When you compare the cost per wear of fast fashion which can wear out after a few wears, vs quality clothing which can last, be repaired and passed down it’s actually a much better deal to buy quality. Quality second hand clothes can be found for about the same price as fast fashion if you know how to look.

9

AnnexBlaster t1_j6o8ia9 wrote

Cotton is cheap af, no one is saying to dress in cashmere wool

8

[deleted] t1_j6mhfk5 wrote

[deleted]

19

sock-opera t1_j6omde9 wrote

Not necessarily, trash in developed counties tend to go to a sealed landfill along with all the other plastic materials we discard.

2

Jebediah_Johnson t1_j6nhjay wrote

We coat it in PFAS to stop the microplastics from shedding. You're welcome - DuPont

11

curiousauruses t1_j6mx270 wrote

Yeah no, I doubt this is a solution. Treating a toxic problem with a temporary coating of an untested material is such an antipattern. Let's just stop making fabrics from plastic and go back to all natural fibers. I've done it in my household, especially motivated since we're on well and septic.

5

chcampb t1_j6n8fa2 wrote

Or, you know, we can stop using synthetic fabrics.

They are basically there to trick people anyway. They are softer (temporarily!) and then get garbage feel. They are a bait and switch, they don't last as long, they are less likely to wick moisture and more likely to grow mold and bacteria.

The day I put two and two together and realized that the only decent clothes I own had basically no synthetic fibers, that was a good day. Made a point of never buying any synthetic crap again. That was years and years ago. Doesn't apply to winter outer gear (ie, windbreaker material).

Now knowing that they also release microplastics, which we don't know the full extent of how they can damage the human body over time, we really need to regulate or tax the use of synthetics. Right now they are so much cheaper that every clothes company wants to use them as their high profit margin clothes and just push out a ton of them, when instead, synthetics should only be used when they have the desired characteristics in the fabric (ie, stretch, waterproof).

5

thulesgold t1_j6nrp22 wrote

I agree with what you wrote except the wick moisture part especially in the context of hiking and outdoors. Wools do wick moisture but synthetic fabrics do as well. They also dry very quickly, are light, can be worn in warmer temperatures, and often inexpensive. So using them for hiking and exercise is compelling. But there's a time and place for everything and I agree with you that it is better to wear natural fibers as much as possible as long as it makes sense.

2

chcampb t1_j6nvbpl wrote

Maybe the synthetics used in outdoor wear is different. All the synthetic I have seen the water just rolls off it, and the sweat gets trapped in the neck.

1

existensile t1_j6nbh2b wrote

Lemme guess...it uses PFAs

4

yesitdooms t1_j6o19o5 wrote

Or we could revert back to cotton dominant clothing.

3

kitesurfr t1_j6nbskd wrote

10 years from now*.. so apparently the synthetic coating used on clothes to not shed miroplastic is a source of super cancer.

2

BobNoxious211 t1_j6npn4m wrote

Until someone finds the coating to be a carcinogen.

2

Sherpa2730 t1_j6nryyy wrote

I guarantee 5 years down the line we'll find that this coating causes another different environmental problem

2

aakova t1_j6owdn2 wrote

It's probably made of plastic itself.

3

Draemalic t1_j6ns77p wrote

How about we just make clothes out of natural textiles again?

2

Aeellron t1_j6nuv4u wrote

TIL: synthetic fabrics have been shedding harmful micro plastics for decades. Oh good.

2

ajn63 t1_j6nvh0g wrote

Until they find out the coating itself is the new forever chemical.

2

Solanade t1_j6nzp9k wrote

If there are micro plastics in our water, surely we're breathing it in too.

2

StargazingJuniper t1_j6okiyc wrote

Here's a wild thought: Stop making clothing from petrochemicals

2

Noosemane t1_j6oqbww wrote

Could just make fabrics from real fibers maybe I dunno I'm not an expert.

2

AutoModerator t1_j6mdom2 wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

ZoomZoom_Driver t1_j6obek9 wrote

Does the coating cause cancer? Is it super flammable? Cause knowing inventions of the past 2 centuries, its probably going to kill us, but we won't have as many microplastics?

1

Wubba888 t1_j6od9ih wrote

Is this stuff carcinogenic? I mean c'mon... there must be a catch, right?!

1