Overview
This source page is a mechanical bulk-ingest record for a PDF in the research-pulls corpus. It preserves source-level identity, routeable product/analyte scope, and exact extracted numeric lines for later human or fresh-context audit. It does not derive HMTc thresholds, percentiles, or brand-by-brand comparisons.
Key numbers
The worker extracted the full PDF text with layout preservation twice and compared extraction hashes before commit. The following lines are copied from numeric/table-bearing regions of the PDF and retain the source units and wording where legible:
- different environmental conditions. Wet wipes made up 25.7% of
- collected wipes, 99% were plastic (predominantly polypropylene
- environment either untreated (including when released via countries, one study found wet wipes accounted for up to 0.6%
- combined sewage overflows (CSOs)) or treated as wastewater of all litter during the pandemic, as compared to 0.2%
- prepandemic.16 In Toronto, wet wipes made up 25% of all
- metropolitan areas in Canada.24,25 We established four sites along the sampling time points (n = 3). Factors that were fully factorial included
- done on a rooftop for full sun exposure. The jars were randomly microfiber counting, one drop of 70% ethanol was added to each
- variability of three replicated subsamples was no larger than 20%
- aluminum foil on a microbalance (Sartorius Entris 64i-1S Analytical (Table S2).
- procedure and the weights were averaged to act as time 0 (Table S1). We used ANOVAs to assess the changes in the mass and microplastic
- polypropylene, 48% polyester, 0.005% a copolymer of plastic,
- and the remaining 0.005% cotton. The lack of cellulosic-
- 25.7% of all AL in the Don River. Apart from Taylor-Massey upstream drainage area and channel width33,34 resulting in an
- amounts ranged from 0−217 wipes per transect. Taylor- as a significant source of macroplastic pollution, including
- Overall, 99% of wipes measured via FTIR were plastic (Figure information is available regarding their proper disposal (see
- Figure 3. Change in mass from time 0 of different wipe materials across treatments (n = 3). Circles represent each individual replicate within a
- brands (Table 1). Overall, it was not easy to get information the differences in mass from time 0 for each material type.
- For disposal, 48 of all 72 products had information available. of plastic wipes (p < 0.05). See ANOVA tables in the
- Information for nonflushable wipes was always in the form of Supporting Information for more information (Tables S5 and
- either a “Do not Flush” logo and/or written text. Disposal S6). Cellulose wipe mass loss ranged from −0.005 - 0.4 g over
- information was also provided when packages contained the time. Mean cellulose mass loss at 2 weeks was 0.025 g (SD =
- presented disposal information. Of those 37, 18 products made ranged from 0.008 - 0.01 g. Mean PET mass loss at 2 weeks
- the information clear, meaning the disposal information was on was 0.002 ± 0.004 g and at 6 weeks was 0.001 ± 0.004 g. PP
- the front of the package, in large font, and in a contrasting mass loss was between −0.0008 - 0.02 g. Mean PP mass loss at
- Figure 4. Degradation of different wipe materials into microfibers across treatments (n = 3). Circles represent each individual replicate within a
- shedding ranged from 0−7386 microfibers per jar at 2 weeks very limited. But, it is likely many wet wipes are made from
- microfibers than both types of plastic (p < 0.05). Mean environmental threat as it increases the likelihood of aquatic
- capture up to 99% of microplastic particles in the biosolids,12 treatment plant, plastic wet wipes can shed microfibers. We
- (Prochilodus lineatus). Environ. Pollut. 2019, 255 (3), No. 113348. (21) Lee, J.; Jeong, S.; Chae, K. J. Discharge of microplastics fibres
- Lebreton, L. More than 1000 rivers account for 80% of global riverine Wollheim, W. M.; Lammers, R. B.; Zuidema, S.; Rochman, C. M. The
- Retail%20Foods%20Annual_Ottawa_Canada_CA2024-0051.pdf (ac-
Methods (brief)
- all macroplastics (>5 mm) collected in the urban river, located
- collected wipes, 99% were plastic (predominantly polypropylene
- mm in size) that arise from the shedding of textiles. While In the lab, collected AL were washed and left to dry for several
- mouth of the river (Pottery Road) (Figure S1). We sampled these In addition, the factor mixing was included only for wet treatments (2
- found in Haney et al. 2025.23 In brief, we sampled each site three treatment were prepared without wipes for a total of 120 samples.
- m reaches, separated by 30−40 m buffer zones (depending on the All samples were prepared in precleaned glass jars, and wet
- stream morphology). Within each reach we sampled and surveyed all treatments had 100 mL of RO water. Jars were cleaned with soap and
- organized on a board on top of a wooden palette (Figure 1). All sun- sample to reduce fiber static and enable the manual separation of
- treated jars were on one side and covered by a large clear container, fibers. The subsample was then counted under the microscope as
- and the nonsun-treated jars were on the other side covered by a large were other samples. After counting, the subsample was extrapolated to
- opaque container. Both containers were not flush with the board to the total amount in the weighed sample and added to the periphery
- laboratory procedures to limit contamination among the samples.
- processed. At 6 weeks, all remaining jars were collected. coats were worn at all times, and all samples were covered when not
- The wipes were always handled with forceps. To assess the change in use. To account for procedural contamination, blank samples were
- in mass of the wipes, they were extracted from jars and, if wet, shaken scanned for each treatment. Blank correction of our samples was
- wipes were placed flat in individual 65 mL weigh boats and covered sample.28,29 Blank counts, in addition to blank corrected totals, are
- allow for drying. The boats were placed in the oven for 24 h at 55 °C. fibers in the blanks was 13. Samples with fewer particles than reported
- variability of three replicated subsamples was no larger than 20%
Implications
This page makes the source discoverable for category-level evidence routing. Values remain source-native and should be used only with the stated matrix, species, basis, geography, and censoring context from the paper. The page does not convert total mercury to methylmercury or use total arsenic as inorganic arsenic.
Wiki pages this source may touch
Verification notes
- Identity check: DOI, raw handle, candidate cite-key, and SHA-256 were compared against existing
wiki/sources/pages before creation. - Full-PDF read:
pdftotext -layoutwas run on the full PDF twice; extracted text hashes matched before the page was written. - Numeric verification: numeric/table-bearing lines were selected mechanically from the verified extraction and preserved without unit conversion or rounding.
- Brand firewall: the worker skips PDFs when extracted numeric lines appear brand/manufacturer-sensitive; this page contains category-level or species-level evidence only.
- HMTc firewall: no threshold, percentile, pass/fail, clean/dirty, or certification math is stated.
Update history
The five most recent substantive edits to this page, classified major (evidence or structure moved), correction (a published value or statement was wrong and has been fixed), or minor (narrative rewritten without changing the underlying evidence). Each description is derived from what the edit did to this page; the linked commit is the authoritative record, routine regeneration passes are excluded, and the full version history lives in git. When DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.