So, you've just seen an ad on social media or read the latest scientific article on microplastics and discover that microplastics can come from the clothes you wear every day, and want to make any changes necessary for a plastic-free wardrobe. But where should you start when most of what you own contains plastic fibers?
This feat can be overwhelming, especially if you're not sure what is important to swap first or you're on a budget.
In this article, we’re going to dive deep into the science and practicality of transitioning to plastic-free clothing, tiering the most important apparel categories to swap first for natural and non-plastic-based fabrics based on microplastic absorption rates, body region, sweat conditions, and garment type.
We’re actively updating our category-specific guides and reviews on plastic-free clothing brands and options. If there is a category you’d like us to prioritize, let us know.
Reducing your microplastic exposure and improving your health with a plastic-free wardrobe
Last year, we reviewed some of the negative health effects of microplastics (that we know of so far) and the best ways to reduce microplastic exposure on the three most common routes - microplastic ingestion, inhalation, and absorption.
Properly filtering your drinking water, investing in HEPA-grade air filters, and opting for inert, plastic free kitchenware are all relatively simple and easy wins you can achieve in less than a week, but what about your closet?
Chances are, most of your wardrobe is made from plastic fibers.
In fact, nearly 60% of all manufactured clothing is now made with plastic-based fabrics such as polyester, nylon, spandex, and acrylic. This increase can be attributed to the rapid rise in fast fashion and demand for cheap alternatives to classic, natural fabric clothing, and has become prevalent in nearly all categories of apparel.
Depending on the type of fabric, these materials shed microplastics onto your skin, into the air you breathe, and pollute the environment when washed or thrown out.
While different plastic-based fabrics are equally microplastic-producing, the general rule of thumb was simple: when possible, go plastic-free.
However, there is substantial evidence for why we think it's wise to prioritize certain garments on your plastic-free journey.
How we ranked which clothing categories to prioritize
There are four main concepts that had the largest impact on how we determined which clothing categories were vital to swap for plastic-free alternatives first: regional skin permeability, the chemical solvency of sweat, airborne microplastic shedding, and the average wear frequency/contact time.
These are the factors we weighted most heavily, and we'll walk through each one below.
Variation in skin permeability by region
In 1967, landmark research conducted by Feldmann and Maibach evaluated the permeability of human skin in different regions with the exposure to hydrocortisone, a steroid hormone used for reducing inflammation and itching.
This study concluded that certain regions such as the scrotal area are capable of absorbing chemicals 42 times the rate of forearm skin. Unsurprisingly, other sensitive areas such as the vulvar tissue were found to have 6-10x the exposure rate of forearm skin, the axilla (armpits) 3.6x, and forehead at 6x the rate. Interestingly, the ankle and foot are less than 0.5x as absorbent as the forearm skin.
In practical terms, this means the clothes sitting closest to your most sensitive skin carry the highest priority for swapping, a principle that runs through every recommendation in this article.
While larger microplastics (above 100 nanometers) are too large to penetrate healthy and intact skin (link), we can certainly make generalizations on the chemicals microplastics carry, such as PFAS, bisphenols, and other plasticizers. This allows us to safely extrapolate on the variable impact of different plastic-based clothing categories, especially when skin-contacting.
Bioaccessibility of plastics in contact with sweat
A study from The University of Birmingham in 2024 found that up to 8% of toxic chemicals, like flame retardants, could leach from plastics and penetrate the skin when sweating. The skin oils and sweat, due to its lipophilic (fat-loving) nature, causes plastic additives to dissolve and become easier to absorb.
This significantly higher bioavailability of the chemicals tested in this study contributes to the priority we will be holding activewear, yogawear, and other skin-contacting clothing typically used during physical activity with increased sweating.
Contribution of airborne microplastics from worn clothing
While the shedding rates of microplastics from specific plastic-based fabrics into the air are somewhat documented, there has been no substantial research conducted yet on what specific types of clothing shed the most microplastics into the air.
However, studies sampling indoor air that concluded that polyester was by far the most abundant synthetic polymer in all samples (81%), reflecting a correlation with dominant textile sources. Even though this could be representative of plastic-based textiles in furniture and carpets, we can combine this data with a 2020 study from the University of Plymouth that concluded up to 400 fibers per gram could be released from polyester clothing in just 20 minutes of normal activity.
The team behind this research ultimately came to a striking statistic: scaled across an average person's synthetic wardrobe worn throughout the day, this amounts to more than 900 million polyester fibers released into the air per year, per person, just from wearing clothes.
It's worth noting that the 400 fibers per gram figure came from a controlled movement test using specific garments, and the researchers' 900 million projection was based on those same test garments rather than a full wardrobe. In other words, the methodology likely produced a conservative estimate. To illustrate why, it helps to break down a typical daily outfit by actual plastic fiber content, since most people are wearing far more synthetic material than a single test garment.
Taking a conservative, gender-neutral daily wardrobe as a baseline:
| Garment | Avg. Weight | Typical plastic fiber composition | Plastic fiber grams | Worn hrs/day |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Underwear | 60g | ~80% (nylon/spandex blend typical) | ~48g | 14–16 hrs |
| Socks (pair) | 60g | ~25% (nylon for durability in otherwise cotton socks) | ~15g | 12–14 hrs |
| T-shirt or base top | 180g | ~50% (65/35 cotton-poly blend is the most common) | ~90g | 12–14 hrs |
| Pants/jeans/casual bottoms | 450g | ~15% (modern denim commonly contains 10–30% synthetic, average ~15%) | ~68g | 12–14 hrs |
| Casual mid-layer (hoodie/sweatshirt) | 550g | ~60% (fleece and most sweatshirts are predominantly polyester) | ~330g | 6–8 hrs |
That's roughly 220 grams of plastic-based fiber in contact with your body for most of the waking day, and that's before any additional layers. A mid-layer fleece or hoodie, commonly 50–80% polyester, adds another 300+ grams of plastic fiber for however many hours it's worn. Each of those grams is shedding throughout the day.
To put that in perspective, we can run the same kind of scaling the Plymouth researchers did, just applied to this more realistic wardrobe. Using their figure of 400 fibers per gram per 20 minutes of activity, which works out to 1,200 fibers per gram per hour, and applying it to the 220 grams of plastic fiber in the base outfit worn for around 13 hours a day, you get roughly 1.25 trillion fibers per year per person from those garments alone. Add the mid-layer worn for around 7 hours and that number climbs past 2 trillion.
Those figures are, frankly, hard to take at face value without some caveats. The 400 fibers per gram figure was the upper bound from an active movement test, not a constant rate across every hour of wear. When you're sitting at a desk or lying on the couch your clothes aren't abrading against your skin at the same rate as during a brisk walk, so treating peak shedding as a flat hourly rate almost certainly overstates the real number. The Plymouth team likely used a more conservative effective rate when doing their own scaling, which is probably why their projection landed at 900 million rather than something in the trillions.
Even so, the gap between 900 million and the figures our wardrobe breakdown produces, even at a fraction of the peak rate, tells you something useful. At just 50 fibers per gram per hour, a conservative resting average, the same outfit still sheds well over 100 billion fibers a year. The precise number is genuinely hard to pin down, and we're not going to pretend otherwise. But whether the real figure is closer to 900 million or several times that, the scale of exposure is significant enough that it shouldn't be dismissed, and it underscores why reducing the total amount of plastic-based fiber you wear daily matters even beyond direct skin contact.
Correlation between exposure and wear time
The cumulative exposure from any garment is ultimately a product of its material risk multiplied by the time it spends against your skin. A synthetic item worn daily accumulates far greater total chemical and microplastic exposure over the course of a year than a garment worn only occasionally, regardless of how problematic its materials might otherwise be.
For this reason, wear frequency acts as a multiplier on all of the factors above: skin permeability, sweat-driven chemical leaching, and airborne shedding all compound with repeated, prolonged contact.
It is worth noting that, for example, a surfing drysuit or ski boot liner made from synthetic materials would be quite situational and perhaps not worth worrying about. Even if these garments score poorly on material composition or skin contact area, their infrequent use means their real-world contribution to your cumulative exposure is comparatively low. Swapping them out simply isn't as urgent as replacing the synthetic underwear you put on every single morning.
A quick overview of the clothing swap priorities
Given these three factors, here's a quick rundown of the tiers we recommend considering, from highest to lowest priority:
- Tier 1 (highest priority): underwear, bras, headwear
- Tier 2 (high priority): activewear, sports bras, base layers, dresses
- Tier 3 (moderate priority): socks, non skin-contacting layers, fleece and high-pile knits, swimwear
- Tier 4 (lower priority): outerwear, footwear, situational clothing
Tier 1: Highest priority swaps (contact with sensitive tissues)
Underwear demands immediate attention
Underwear faces the worst intersection of microplastic and chemical exposure factors. The direct contact with the body’s most permeable tissues such as the scrotum with an aforementioned 42x absorption rate of chemicals versus forearm skin, combined with warm, moist conditions, constant friction, and 12-16+ hours of daily wear makes your underwear the most important garment you can swap out.
In the 1992, a study on men wearing polyester scrotal supports over the course of 140 days found that the subjects became 100% azoospermic (zero sperm). The effects, however, were reversible over time after removal.
Plastic-free underwear for men is not difficult to source, but women’s underwear can be harder to find - most women’s intimate clothing usually contains a percentage of spandex (elastane) to maintain shape and form fitting properties. Cotton, linen, and wool are typically the go-to replacement materials for men and women’s underwear.
Important note: Many underwear brands with “natural” or “plastic-free” claims still use a partially elastic waistband, although this is a substantially less significant source of microplastic exposure.
Bras also warrant early replacement
Similar to underwear, bras cover highly sensitive areas of the body including the underarm area and breast tissue, and are worn nearly all day.
Hats, scarves, and other headwear are commonly made from plastic
Skin on the scalp, forehead, and face absorb chemicals 3.5x-11x that of the skin of the forearm, making headwear the last but not least entry on our highest priority tier of clothing swaps.
Most clothing in this category is often made from acrylic (beanies, scarves) and polyester (hats, balaclavas) - two of the worst plastic fabrics for your health.
Tier 2: Higher priority swaps (sweat, friction, high coverage, and wear duration concerns)
The following swaps are recommended only after your daily undergarments have been replaced, but are still vital for lowering your overall microplastic exposure. Activewear, yogawear, and sports bras are usually worn with the intention of facilitating a good workout. However, the combination of sweating and friction from regular wear can make these types of clothing some of the worst sources of microplastic shedding.
Additionally, this tier also accounts for clothing that directly contacts a large area of skin or over long periods of time, such as base layers, dresses, and sleepwear.
Activewear and yogawear concentrate chemical exposure during use
Major brands like Athleta, Lululemon, and Nike have been entirely focused on making the best ‘performance wear’ for active consumers, but at the cost of using microplastic-shedding materials to achieve shaping and moisture-wicking properties.
While the duration of wear might be minimal for some gym-goers, the impact of sweating and high heat only exacerbate the rates of microplastic exposure, meaning the workout gear you wear to improve your health may be working against it at the same time.
Gym shorts and leggings sit close to the genital region and, depending on whether liners or underwear are worn underneath, may contact it directly.
Sports bras, like normal bras, cover high absorption skin areas such as the armpit (3.6x). When worn for workouts, runs, or other activities, sports bras rub up against the skin and soak up sweat, making them the perfect environment for microplastics and chemicals to absorb into the skin. This same methodology expands to gym shirts, which are not only commonly plastic, but could also be tight-fitting, increasing friction and shedding on the armpit area.
Base layers and dresses cover the largest surface area
Even if you’re already wearing plastic-free underwear and bras, the base layers you wear over them cover the entire body - if these garments are made with plastic fabrics (which they typically are), then the overall volume of your microplastic and chemical exposure could be increased dramatically during wear.
The unsafe exposure from plastic-based base layers compound further when considering the previously mentioned effects of sweating (since the base layers are commonly used for wicking properties), as well as the friction, stretching, and tighter fit of base layers.
It’s precisely the same story for dresses - like base layers, a single dress could contact nearly the entire body depending on the style. The dresses category tends to suffer from fast fashion trends; if it’s intended to only be worn a few times, consumers are more complacent with cheaply constructed products that are, yes, made from plastics.
Sleepwear fabric is just as important as bedding fabric
Just as the materials in your bedding matter, so does what you sleep in.
When sleepwear made from plastic fabric is worn overnight, the direct skin contact and perspiration for 7-8 hours straight makes it essential to opt for natural alternatives.
Tier 3: Moderate priority swaps (lower absorption rates, non-skin-contacting)
Our third tier of clothing swaps to consider when going from plastic to plastic-free covers clothing worn on lower absorption rate skin regions such as socks, as well as non-skin-contacting layers that could still release a significant amount of microplastics into the air when worn.
Socks cover low-absorption skin but are still worth swapping
Since the skin around the ankle and foot absorbs chemicals at only half the rate of forearm skin, socks are one of the lower-urgency swaps on this list.
However, they are worn daily and often for 12+ hours, with the combination of heat, moisture, and friction inside a shoe creating conditions that still facilitate a degree of chemical leaching from plastic-based fabrics.
They may not be your first swap, but when you're ready, they're an easy one.
Non-skin-contacting layers still shed significant airborne microplastics
Even though sweaters, hoodies, and mid-layers that sit over other garments don't contribute meaningfully to direct chemical absorption through the skin, polyester and other synthetic textiles shed hundreds of fibers per gram of fabric into the air during normal activity.
A fleece pullover worn over a t-shirt is still releasing microplastics into the air around you (and into your home) for as long as it's being worn. This makes non-skin-contacting layers worth swapping, particularly high-pile fleece garments, which are among the worst offenders for airborne fiber shedding.
Swimwear covers highly sensitive areas and deserves a higher consideration for frequent swimmers
Swimwear would rank considerably higher on this list if it weren't for the fact that most people wear it situationally. But it's worth noting that most swimwear directly contacts some of the most chemically absorbent skin regions on the body for extended periods of time, often in warm conditions that further open the door for chemical absorption.
For anyone swimming regularly, swapping for plastic-free or reduced-synthetic swimwear should be treated closer to a Tier 2 priority.
Tier 4: Lower priority swaps (environmental concerns, minimal skin contact, hard-to-replace categories)
Clothing categories in this final tier either have minimal direct skin contact, are worn infrequently enough to pose a lower cumulative risk, or are simply so difficult to replace with plastic-free alternatives that a pragmatic approach is warranted.
Outerwear is more of an environmental problem than a personal health one
Jackets and outerwear generally sit over multiple layers of clothing, meaning direct skin contact and chemical absorption are largely non-factors. The more pressing concern with outerwear, particularly jackets treated with DWR (durable water repellent) coatings or made with Gore-Tex membranes, is primarily environmental.
PFAS-based DWR treatments are well-documented as persistent environmental pollutants, and the microplastics shed from synthetic shells during washing contribute meaningfully to water contamination. From a personal health standpoint, however, outerwear poses a comparatively low risk, and swapping it out is more of a long-term consideration than an urgent one.
Footwear is nearly impossible to replace, and the tradeoff is minimal (with exceptions)
There is almost no direct skin contact with the synthetic materials in most footwear and truly plastic-free footwear options are extremely limited outside of leather and some natural rubber options. The health-related microplastic exposure from footwear is negligible compared to everything ranked above it - except for one type: sandals.
Sandals and other sock-less footwear could be worth replacing for the direct skin contact (albeit on the least absorbent region of the foot and ankle) mainly because there are actually options out there. Leather is the most common for real, quality sandals and the simple design of this type of footwear actually leads to a decent online presence of plastic-free options.
Situational clothing carries low cumulative risk by definition
Sports jerseys, ski boot liners, wetsuits, drysuits, and other activity-specific garments are last on the list for the same reason outlined earlier in this article: wear frequency is a multiplier.
A wetsuit worn on a handful of surf trips per year, or a ski liner used for a week in winter, simply doesn't accumulate enough contact time to register as a meaningful source of microplastic exposure, even if the materials themselves would score poorly in other categories.
Other benefits of plastic-free clothing
Besides the health benefits we've covered, there are a few other good reasons to make the switch, and they're worth keeping in mind when you're weighing the upfront cost of natural fiber clothing against cheaper synthetic alternatives.
Plastic-free clothing is an investment that pays for itself
The natural fiber pieces you add to your wardrobe over time, with proper care, are going to outlast cheap synthetic garments by years. A well-made wool sweater or cotton oxford shirt doesn't pill, degrade, or lose its shape the way a polyester blend does after a season of washing. The upfront cost is real, but when a single quality garment replaces three disposable ones, the math shifts quickly and you end up with a wardrobe you actually want to keep wearing.
Promoting safer manufacturing conditions for textile workers
Higher-quality brands that build around natural and plastic-free fibers are generally less likely to rely on the race-to-the-bottom pricing that drives the exploitative labor conditions well-documented in fast fashion manufacturing. The traditional manufacturing techniques required for many natural fiber garments also tend to sidestep some of the more toxic industrial processes involved in synthetic textile production. When you choose a brand built around linen, wool, or organic cotton, you're more likely to be supporting a supply chain that treats the people in it decently. That's not a guarantee, and it's worth researching specific brands before buying, but the correlation is meaningful.
You're helping build the market for a plastic-free future
Most consumers still don't know that their clothes are shedding microplastics. The brands working to change that are operating in a niche market, and they stay alive because of customers like you. Every purchase you make toward a plastic-free wardrobe helps those businesses grow, invest in better materials, and reach people who haven't yet made the connection between their clothing and their health. The more that market grows, the more accessible and affordable these options become for everyone, which is ultimately how the broader problem gets solved.
Conclusion: Taking it one swap at a time
Transitioning to a plastic-free wardrobe is not something that happens overnight, and it shouldn't feel like it has to. The goal of this article isn't to send you spiraling into a closet audit or make you feel guilty about the synthetic fleece you've owned for a decade. It's to give you a clear, evidence-based framework so that when you do make purchases, you're making them in the right order.
If you can only make one swap this month, make it your underwear. If you can make two, add a natural fiber t-shirt to replace your most-worn synthetic top. Small, deliberate changes accumulate quickly when they're focused on the items you wear every single day, and the compounding health benefits of consistent exposure reduction are far more meaningful than a wholesale wardrobe overhaul that burns you out or breaks the bank.
It's also worth keeping perspective on what "plastic-free" realistically means in practice. Very few people will achieve a completely synthetic-free wardrobe, and that's okay. A rain jacket, a sports bra for your morning run, a beloved pair of stretch jeans - these are reasonable tradeoffs, especially once your highest-priority daily items have been addressed. The goal is meaningful reduction, not perfection.
What matters most is that you're moving in the right direction. The science on microplastic exposure is still developing, and we'll continue to update this guide as new research emerges. But the evidence we have now is compelling enough to act on. Your wardrobe didn't become 60% synthetic overnight, and it doesn't need to become plastic-free overnight either.
