Microfiber – really the wonder cleaning product?

Microfiber cloths and mops have been used in commercial cleaning for over twenty years because they can trap dirt and reduce bacteria with less water and fewer chemicals. Despite this, today we find that microfiber products are creating several unexpected problems, including microplastic pollution, inconsistent cleaning performance, and misleading marketing claims, according to Stephen Ashkin sustainability expert and the Father of Green Cleaning.

The microfiber microplastic problem

The most serious issue is environmental contamination. Microfiber products are made from synthetic materials, primarily polyester and polyamide, that release microscopic plastic fibres every time they are washed. These tiny particles slip through wastewater treatment systems and accumulate in oceans, rivers, and the atmosphere.

Health impacts

The health implications are significant. When people inhale or ingest these microplastic fibres, they face increased risks of lung disease, respiratory problems, various cancers, and liver, kidney, and digestive disorders. The smallest particles can even penetrate the bloodstream, placenta, brain, and other vital organs.

The irony

Microfiber was promoted as environmentally superior because it could be reused, thereby reducing the need for chemical cleaners. However, this marketing narrative ignored the long-term environmental and health consequences. A product designed to support Green Cleaning initiatives has become a significant contributor to plastic pollution, illustrating how well-intentioned solutions can backfire without proper consideration of their full impact.

Unverified marketing claims

The microfiber market is flooded with products making bold promises:

• 99% bacteria removal.

• Durability through hundreds of washes.

• Reduced need for disinfectants. The problem is that the industry lacks uniform testing standards, making it impossible for buyers to verify these claims.

Without third-party verification or clear performance benchmarks, cleaners often find that microfiber products fail to meet expectations. This leads to poor cleaning results, faster replacement cycles, and higher costs than anticipated, the opposite of what businesses hoped to achieve when seeking better hygiene and sustainability. Does not promote sustainability.

Inventory loss and hidden costs

Microfiber creates unexpected operational challenges. “Shrinkage,” the loss of cleaning cloths through accidents, theft, or employees mistaking them for personal items, drives up replacement costs and disrupts cleaning schedules. These losses are particularly problematic because microfiber products represent a significant upfront investment.

Does not promote sustainability

Microfiber products appear sustainable because they’re reusable and reduce chemical consumption. However, a complete lifecycle analysis reveals a different story.

Production relies on fossil fuels; the products aren’t recyclable, and they may persist in landfills for decades. When combined with microplastic pollution, these hidden environmental costs often exceed any benefits. Without transparent data and complete lifecycle assessments, purchasing decisions based on sustainability claims can lead to greenwashing rather than genuine environmental progress.

Our responsibility

While microfibers are “the most prominent form of microplastics in the environment,” according to a 2023 review in Science of the Total Environment, the cleaning industry contributes minimally compared to consumer textiles and clothing. However, cleaning professionals can still lead by example, just as many have done by adopting green cleaning practices and reducing the use of harmful chemicals. Research shows promise for improvement. A 2021 study in Environmental Science & Pollution Research found that “finer count yarns with filaments and compact structures reduce microfiber shedding” and that proper production methods can “yield a textile that sheds less or no microfiber.”

New standards to promote innovation

The microfiber situation demonstrates what happens when innovation lacks adequate oversight. The industry needs an evidence-based approach with several key changes:

Establish technical standards: Transform “microfiber” from a marketing buzzword into a technical term with measurable performance criteria, including standardised shedding tests like the AATCC TM212-2021 test method.

Require third-party validation: Environmental and antimicrobial claims should be independently verified rather than self-reported.

Improve laundering practices: Since washing synthetic textiles is the primary source of microplastic release, adopt gentler methods:

• Pre-soak and rinse soiled cloths in cold water;

• Install filters in washing machines and dryers to capture released fibres;

• Wash microfiber separately without fabric softener, using mesh bags to contain fibres;

• Avoid bleach and high-pH detergents that break down fibres; and

• Air dry or use low heat settings (40°C).

Educate the industry

Cleaning professionals and purchasers require comprehensive information about the environmental, operational, and health implications of microfiber use to make informed decisions. The goal isn’t to eliminate microfiber overnight but to ensure its use is based on complete information rather than incomplete marketing claims. Only through transparency, innovation, and accountability can the cleaning industry avoid repeating the pattern of well-intentioned solutions creating unintended problems.

The challenge of alternatives

Finding suitable replacements for microfiber isn’t straightforward. Each alternative presents its own set of trade-offs:

Cotton cloths: Even organic cotton undergoes dyeing and chemical treatments to enhance its durability. Scaling cotton production to meet commercial cleaning demand would require a substantial amount of land and water. Additionally, cotton’s reduced cleaning performance might increase the need for more powerful chemical cleaners.

Disposable paper wipes: These often contain plastic fibres, such as polyester, that don’t biodegrade, contributing to the same microplastic pollution problem that microfiber creates.

Bioplastics: While these reduce petroleum dependency, they may contain the same chemical additives as traditional plastics and still contribute to microplastic pollution.

A November 2024 study in Environmental Science & Technology raised concerns about whether bioplastics present greater environmental hazards than conventional polymers in equivalent applications.

The way forward

Microfiber products were introduced with genuine promises of improved hygiene and sustainability. In many ways, they delivered on these goals –but not without significant unforeseen consequences. From microplastic contamination to labour issues and operational challenges, the cleaning industry must now address these unintended impacts.

The microfiber story serves as a reminder that even well-intentioned innovations require careful evaluation of their complete impact, not just their immediate benefits.

Steve Ashkin is the president of The Ashkin Group. He is considered the “Father of Green Cleaning” and has been recognised by the ISSA as one of the most influential members of the cleaning industry over the past 100 years.