Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

LCA benchmarking study on textiles made of cotton, polyester, nylon, acryl, or elastane

  • LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (LCIA)
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to provide an improved (up-to-date) insight into the environmental burden of textiles made of the base materials cotton, polyester (PET), nylon, acryl, and elastane. The research question is: Which base material and which life cycle stage (cradle-to-gate as well as cradle-to-grave) have the biggest impact on the environment?

Methods

Life cycle inventory (LCI) data are collected from the literature, life cycle assessment (LCA) databases, and emission registration database of the Dutch government, as well as communications with both manufacturing companies of production equipment and textile companies. The output of the calculations is presented in four single indicators: Eco-costs 2012 (a prevention-based indicator), CO2 equivalent (carbon footprint), cumulative energy demand (CED), and ReCiPe (a damage-based indicator).

Results and discussion

From an analysis of the data, it becomes clear that the environmental burden is not only a function of the base materials (cotton, PET, nylon, acryl, and elastane) but also of the thickness of the yarn (for this research, the range of 50–500 dtex is examined). The authors propose that the environmental burden of spinning, weaving, and knitting is a function of 1/yarn size. The cradle-to-grave analysis from raw material extraction to discarded textile demonstrates that textiles made out of acryl and PET have the least impact on the environment, followed by elastane, nylon, and cotton. The use phase has less relative impact than it is suggested in the classical literature.

Conclusions

The impact of spinning and weaving is relatively high (for yarn thicknesses of less than 100 dtex), and from the environmental point of view, knitting is better than weaving. LCA on textiles can only be accurate when the yarn thickness is specified. In case the functional unit also indicates the fabric per square meter, the density must be known. LCA results of textile products over the whole value chain are case dependent, especially when dyeing and finishing processes and the use phase and end-of-life are included in the analysis. Further LCI data studies on textiles and garments are urgently needed to lower the uncertainties in contemporary LCA of textile materials and products.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term “greige” is industry jargon for “untreated woven or knitted fabric” and refers to the fabric before the final phases of dyeing and finishing. In this context, “greige” is defined as “unbleached and undyed or untreated.”

References

  • Bahr Dar Textile Share Company (2010) Promoting resource efficiency in small and medium sized enterprises BD-Textile-Final-RE-Plan. UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics

  • Brown HL, Hamel BB, Hedman BA (1985) Energy analysis of 108 industrial processes. US Department of Energy, pp 207–209

  • BSR (2009) Apparel industry life cycle carbon mapping. Business for Social Responsibility

  • Cartwright J, Cheng J et al (2011) Assessing the environmental impacts of industrial laundering: life cycle assessment of polyester/cotton shirts. M.Sc. thesis, Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California

  • CES (2012) Cambridge engineering selector. Granta Design, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins M, Aumônier S (2002) Streamlined life cycle assessment of two Marks & Spencer plc apparel products. Environmental Resources Management, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotton Incorporated (2011) Life cycle assessment of cotton fibre and fabric executive summary (15 pages) and brochure (4 pages). Prepared for Vision 21 (A Project of the Cotton Foundation)

  • Dahllöf L (2004) LCA methodology issues for textile products. Technical report no. 2004:8. Licentiate thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg

  • Demir A, Behery HM (1997) Synthetic filament yarn: texturing technology. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

  • Ecoinvent (2007a) Life cycle inventories of renewable materials. The Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories

  • Ecoinvent (2007b) Life cycle inventories of chemicals. The Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories

  • Ecoinvent (2007c) Strommix and Stromnetz. The Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories

  • Ecoinvent (2010) Database Ecoinvent version v2.2. The Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories

  • Goedkoop M, Hofstetter P, Müller-Wenk R, Spriemsma R (1998) The Eco-indicator 98 explained. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(6):352–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idemat (2012) Database Idemat version 2012, Delft University of Technology. Available at http://www.ecocostsvalue.com/EVR/model/theory/subject/5-data.html

  • IPPC (2003) Reference document on best available techniques (BAT) for the textiles industry. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), European Commission

  • ITMF (2008) International production cost comparison. International Textile Manufacturers Federation, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • ITMF (2010) International production cost comparison. International Textile Manufacturers Federation, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalliala E, Talvenmaa P (1999) Environmental profile of textile wet processing in Finland. J Clean Prod 8:143–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan E, Koç E (2010) Investigation of energy consumption in yarn production with special reference to open-end rotor spinning. Fibres Text East Eur 18(79):7–13

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kim SY, Grady PL, Hersh SP (1983) Energy consumption and conservation in the fibre producing and textile industries. Text Prog 13(3):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koç E, Çinçik E (2010) Analysis of energy consumption in woven fabric production. Fibres Text in East Eur 18(79):14–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Laitala K, Boks C (2012) Sustainable clothing design: use matters. J Des Res 10(1/2):121–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen SE, Hansen J et al (1997) Environmental assessment of textiles. Environmental Project No. 369, Danish Environmental Protection Agency

  • Laursen SE, Hansen J et al (2007) EDIPTEX—environmental assessment of textiles. Working Report No. 24, Danish Technological Institute

  • Manich AM, de Castellar MD, Saurí RM, Miguel RAL, Barella A (2001) Abrasion kinetics of wool and blended fabrics. Text Res J 71(6):469–474

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mestre A, Vogtlander J (2013) Eco-efficient value creation of cork products: an LCA-based method for design intervention. J Clean Prod. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.023

    Google Scholar 

  • Palamutcu S (2010) Electric energy consumption in the cotton textile processing stages. Energy 35(7):2945–2952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen L (2011) Bio-based and recycled polymers for cleaner production—an assessment of plastics and fibres. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Science, Technology and Society (STS)/Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University

  • Smith GG, Barker RH (1995) Life cycle analysis of a polyester garment. Resour Conserv Recycl 14:233–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberger JK, Friot D, Jolliet O, Erkman S (2009) A spatially explicit life cycle inventory of the global textile chain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:443–455

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tobler-Rohr MI (2011) Handbook of sustainable textile production, Woodhead Publishing Series in Textiles. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Todd JA, Curran MA (1999) Streamlined life-cycle assessment: a final report from the SETAC North America Streamlined LCA Workgroup. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education

  • VDMA (2009) Blue competence brochure “Conserving resources—securing savings-potential. The comparison, measuring and labelling of energy-efficient textile machinery”. VDMA, Frankfurt am Mein

  • Verhulst NHW (2010) Designing a high value application for textile out of non-wearable second hand clothing. M.Sc. Graduation Report IO1115642, Institutional Repository Delft University of Technology

  • Vogtländer JG (2013) Eco-efficient value creation, sustainable design and business strategies. VSSD, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogtländer JG, Bijma A (2000) The virtual pollution prevention costs '99: a single LCA-based indicator for emissions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(2):113–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogtländer JG, Brezet HC, Hendriks CF (2001) The virtual ecocosts '99: a single LCA-based indicator for sustainability and the eco-costs/value ratio (EVR) model for economic allocation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(3):157–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walser T, Demou E, Lang DJ, Hellweg S (2011) Prospective environmental life cycle assessment of nanosilver T-shirts. Environ Sci Technol 45(10):4570–4578

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wever R, Vogtlander J (2012) Eco-efficient value creation: an alternative perspective on packaging and sustainability. Packag Technol Sci. doi:10.1002/pts.1978

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang Y, Li S (1999) Dyeing behavior of 100 % poly(trimethylene terephthalate) (PTT) textiles. Text Chem Color Am Dyest Report 1(3):50–54

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yeh KN, Smith BF (1983) An investigation of selected dye carriers used in commercial dyeing of hydrophobic fibres. Environmental Protection Agency, USA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The calculations presented in this article were executed within the framework of the FP7 project LCA-to-go, which is funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 265096. Data collection was intensively supported by Milene Geldof of the textile engineering school ENSAIT in Lille, France. The authors would like to thank the reviewers and all other anonymous experts for sharing knowledge and giving their professional judgments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Design for Sustainability, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Technical University Delft, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE, Delft, The Netherlands

    Natascha M. van der Velden & Joost G. Vogtländer

  2. Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Budapestlaan 6, 3584 CD, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Martin K. Patel

Authors
  1. Natascha M. van der Velden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin K. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joost G. Vogtländer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natascha M. van der Velden.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Marzia Traverso

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van der Velden, N.M., Patel, M.K. & Vogtländer, J.G. LCA benchmarking study on textiles made of cotton, polyester, nylon, acryl, or elastane. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19, 331–356 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0626-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0626-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation