Abstract
Purpose
The textile industry is inclined towards an unsustainable trajectory because of a variety of environmental issues stemming from the intensive use of water and energy during wet processing. As climate change has been regarded as the biggest health threat facing humanity and textiles’ color derived from dyestuff is closely associated with wet processing, this study focuses on evaluating the carbon footprint (CF) of textiles dyed with different dyestuff recipes and identifying the quantitative correlation between the CF and the mass of dyestuff inputted, to seek opportunities for improvement from the manufacturers’ perspective.
Methods
The industrial CF of 25 cotton-dyed knitted fabrics with different reactive dyestuff recipes was assessed referring to PAS 2395 and the methodology of life cycle assessment, where the investigated phases include knitting, wet processing, packing, and sewage treatment. The primary data of assessed fabrics were collected by on-site investigation in a knitting manufacturing company in China. The functional unit is knitting, dyeing, and finishing 1 t of cotton. The mass of dyestuff in a dyeing bath for 1 kg fabric (MDB) was utilized to characterize different colors of textiles. A quantitative correlation between the CF of wet processing and MDB was established through second-order polynomial regression.
Results and discussion
Within the given system boundary, 1 t of cotton-dyed knitted fabric emitted an average of 7505.12 kg CO2 eq, and energy accounts for the largest proportion. When white fabric without any dyestuff was included and excluded from the sample range, the maximum differences in CF between fabrics were 4437.90 kg CO2 eq and 3546.55 kg CO2 eq, respectively. Furthermore, with the consecutive increment of MDB within a certain range (0 ~ 5.41%), the CF of pre-processing shows a gentle downward trend while the CF of dyeing exhibits a trend of initially rising and subsequently declining within a certain range (0 ~ 1.37%) and then presents an upward trend. Interestingly, the CF of wet processing is affected by the alternation of its two major processes. The above results may reduce the absoluteness of the argument that “textiles with darker colors are less environmentally friendly.”
Conclusions
Special attention should be paid to the contribution of textiles’ color to their CFs, owing to the substantial variations that exist in the CF of wet processing among knitted fabrics of different colors. The contribution of wet processing to global warming is impacted by multiple factors, including steam consumption, chemical usage, liquor ratio, and process time. This study may offer ideas for interdisciplinary research and point out the future direction for the textile wet processing industry to improve environmental performance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Most of the data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information file. For more details, datasets are available from the corresponding author upon request.
References
Amin MR, Mahmud A, Anannya FR (2021) Assessment of carbon footprint of various cotton knitwear production processes in Bangladesh. AATCC J Res 8(6):47–57. https://doi.org/10.14504/ajr.8.6.6
Amjad AI, Kumar R (2022) Sustainable production and performance analysis of cotton melange fabrics. J Nat Fibers 19(15):11831–11844. https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2022.2044963
APPARELIMPACTINSTITUTE and CTEAM (2020) Practice-based technical guide for low-cost responses to climate change in the textile industry. http://cteam.org/pdf/jiyushijiandefangzhihangyedichengbenyingduiqihoubianhuajishuzhinan.pdf
Astudillo MF, Thalwitz G, Vollrath F (2014) Life cycle assessment of Indian silk. J Cleaner Prod 81:158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.007
Braschel N, Posch A (2013) A review of system boundaries of GHG emission inventories in waste management. J Cleaner Prod 44:30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.050
BSI (2014) PAS 2395:2014 Specification for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from the Whole Life Cycle of Textile Products. British Standards Institution
BTBU (2020) Enzyme product carbon footprint life cycle assessment report. https://www.yiduoli.com/upload/news/2020-04-24/1587689281122025967.pdf
Bulut MO (2016) Low temperature bleaching for reactive dyeing and top white knitted cotton fabric. J Cleaner Prod 137:461–474
Cai B, Gao Q, Li Z et al (2015) Study on the methane emission factors of wastewater treatment plants in China. China Pop Res Env 25(04):118–124
Chen Y, Bi Y, Wu X et al (2024) Impact of additional carbon storage of natural plant fiber on product carbon footprint: a case study of cotton/kapok blended T-shirt VS pure cotton T-shirt. J Cleaner Prod 434:140237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140237
CPCD (2021) China Products Carbon Footprint Factors Database. https://lca.cityghg.com/
de Oliveira CRS, da Silva Júnior AH, Mulinari J et al (2021) Textile re-engineering: eco-responsible solutions for a more sustainable industry. Sustain Prod Consump 28:1232–1248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.08.001
de Oliveira GC, Tucci HNP, Correia JMF et al (2021) Stakeholders’ influences on the adoption of cleaner production practices: a survey of the textile industry. Sustain Prod Consump 26:126–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.001
Fashion and the circular economy - deep dive (2017) Ellen macarthur foundation. https://archive.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/explore/fashion-and-the-circular-economy
Fan X (2017) Textile Dyeing and Finishing Technology (3rd Edition). China Textile Press
Fashion United (2020) Global fashion industry statistics. https://fashionunited.com/global-fashion-industry-statistics
Feng W (2015) Study and validation on the allocation problem in the calculation of industrial carbon and water footprint of textile and apparel products [Donghua University]. Shanghai
IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/
ISO (2006) Environmental management-life cycle assessment-general principles and framework. ISO14040
Kant R (2012) Textile dyeing industry an environmental hazard. Nat Sci 4(1): 5, Article 17027. https://doi.org/10.4236/ns.2012.41004
Khattab TA, Abdelrahman MS, Rehan M (2020) Textile dyeing industry: environmental impacts and remediation. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:3803–3818
Li X, Ren J, Wu Z et al (2021) Development of a novel process-level water footprint assessment for textile production based on modularity. J Cleaner Prod 291:125884
Li X, Chen L, Ding X (2019) Allocation methodology of process-level carbon footprint calculation in textile and apparel products. Sustainability-basel 11(16):4471. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164471
Li ZH, Zhang WB, Xia B et al (2022) Comparison of life cycle environmental impact between two processes for silver separation from copper anode slime. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19(13):7790. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137790
Li X (2014) Study on Several Crucial Issues about Industrial Carbon Footprint of Textile and Apparel Products [Donghua University]. Shanghai
Liu WS, Wu XY, Ding XM (2015) Industrial carbon footprint caculation of woollen yarn. Wool Text J 43(2):57–61
Liu Y, Zhu LB, Zhang C et al (2020) Life cycle assessment of melange yarns from the manufacturer perspective. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25(3):588–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01705-8
Luo Y, Zhou RX, Li XM et al (2022b) Carbon footprint calculation and assessment of jeans products based on process modularity. Adv Tex Tec 30(6):204–210
Luo Y, Wu X, Ding X (2022a) Carbon and water footprints assessment of cotton jeans using the method based on modularity: a full life cycle perspective. J Cleaner Prod 332(130042)
Nolan C, Overpeck JT, Allen JRM et al (2018) Past and future global transformation of terrestrial ecosystems under climate change. Sci 361(6405):920–923. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan5360
Pecl GT, Araújo MB, Bell JD et al (2017) Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Sci 355(6332):eaai9214. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai9214
Rathin C, Farid A (2022) Economical use of water in cotton knit dyeing industries of Bangladesh. J Cleaner Prod 340:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130825
Roos S, Jönsson C, Posner S et al (2018) An inventory framework for inclusion of textile chemicals in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24(5):838–847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1537-6
SAC (2018a) GB 36889–2018: The norm of energy consumption per unit product of PET and PET fiber. Standardization Administration of China
SAC (2018b) Requirements of the greenhouse gas emissions accounting and reporting Part 12 :Textile and garment enterprise. Standardization Administration of China
Saxce MD, Pesnel S, Perwuelz A (2012) LCA of bed sheets e some relevant parameters for lifetime assessment. J Cleaner Prod 37:221–228
Terinte N, Manda BMK, Taylor J et al (2014) Environmental assessment of coloured fabrics and opportunities for value creation: spin-dyeing versus conventional dyeing of modal fabrics. J Cleaner Prod 2:127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.002
UNDP (2023) What are the Sustainable Development Goals? https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals/climate-action?gclid=CjwKCAiA0syqBhBxEiwAeNx9N7MvYf-Hpx1ND8LvXBS3iuCCoodeM61yjV01b_9YpCL2e9TLyN8_aBoCficQAvD_BwE
UNFCCC (2018) UN helps fashion industry shift to low carbon. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/news/un-helps-fashion-industry-shift-to-low-carbon
Velden NMVd, Patel MK, Vogtländer JG (2014) LCA benchmarking study on textiles made of cotton, polyester, nylon, acryl, or elastane. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(2):331–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0626-9
Wang L, Wu X, Ding X et al (2012) Case study on industrial carbon footprint and industrial water footprint of cotton knits. Dye Fin 38(7):43–46
Wang CX, Wang LH, Liu XL et al (2015) Carbon footprint of textile throughout its life cycle: a case study of Chinese cotton shirts. J Cleaner Prod 108:464–475
Wang L, Xu Y, Lee H et al (2022) Preferred product attributes for sustainable outdoor apparel: a conjoint analysis approach. Sustain Prod Consump 29:657–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.11.011
Wang L (2013) Research and demonstration of carbon footprint and waterfootprint of textiles and clothing [Donghua University]
WHO (2021) Climate change and health. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health
WRAP (2017) Valuing Our Clothes: the Cost of UK Fashion. https://wrap.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-10/WRAP-valuing-our-clothes-the-cost-of-uk-fashion_WRAP.pdf
WRI/WBCSD (2004) The greenhouse gas protocol: a corporate accounting and reporting standard revised edition. World Business Council for Sustainable Development and World Resources Institute, Geneva
WRI/WBCSD (2005) The greenhouse gas protocol: Project accounting, World Business Council for Sustainable Development and World Resources Institute, Geneva
WRI/WBCSD (2006) The greenhouse gas protocol: designing a customized greenhouse gas calculation tool, World Business Council for Sustainable Development and World Resources Institute, Geneva
Xia X (2014) Low liquor ratio dyeing process of cotton knit fabric with reactive dyes [Donghua Univeristy]. Shanghai
Xin W, Yang X, Wang Z (2022) Example of carbon accounting for watertreatment and application study of different N2O emission factors. Adv Anal Chem 12(2):60–67. https://doi.org/10.12677/aac.2022.122009
Xu WX (2021) Xinjiang pink cotton T-shirts have a very low carbon footprint. China Environment News. http://epaper.cenews.com.cn/html/1/2021-06/08/07B/2021060807B_pdf.pdf
Ye L, Qi C, Hong J et al (2017) Life cycle assessment of polyvinyl chloride production and its recyclability in China. J Cleaner Prod 142:2965–2972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.171
Yu J, Zhao R, Xiao L et al (2020) Carbon emissions of urban wastewater treatment system based on the “water-energy-carbon” nexus. Res Sci 42(6):1052–1062. https://doi.org/10.18402/resci.2020.06.04
Zhang Y, Liu X, Xiao R et al (2015) Life cycle assessment of cotton T-shirts in China. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(7):994–1004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0889-4
Acknowledgements
Special thanks are extended to Ming Tan, Tianjian Li, and responsible colleagues in the investigated factory in Jiangsu province in China.
Funding
The funding support for this research is provided by Shanghai Science and Technology Committee through project 21640770300 as well as in part by Tsinghua University-INDITEX Sustainable Development Fund.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Communicated by Enrico Benetto.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendices
Appendix 1 Nomenclature list
Abbreviation | Nomenclature |
|---|---|
GWP | Global warming potential |
CF | Carbon footprint |
OMF | On mass of fabric |
MDB | The mass of dyestuff in a dyeing bath for 1kg fabric |
GHG | Greenhouse gas |
PAC | Poly aluminum chloride |
PAM | Polyacrylamide |
COD | Chemical oxygen demand |
CO2 eq | Carbon dioxide equivalent |
CH4 | Methane |
N2O | Nitrous oxide |
Appendix 2 Carbon emission factors needed for GHG emissions from cotton-dyed knitted fabric
Data type | List | Carbon emission factor | Data source |
|---|---|---|---|
Energy | Industrial electricity | 0.7035 kg CO2 eq/kW.h | T/CNTAC 11–2018 |
Steam (0.8MPa) | 0.2953 kg CO2 eq/kg | (SAC 2018b) | |
Standard coal | 2.4570 kg CO2 eq/kg | (SAC 2018a) | |
Petrol | 2.99 kg CO2 eq/kg | (IPCC 2006) | |
Water | Industrial water | 0.093 kg CO2 eq/ton | (Chen et al. 2024) |
Materials | Yarn lubricated oil | 0.907 kg CO2 eq/kg | (Li 2014) |
Reactive dyestuff | 2.67 kg CO2 eq/kg | ||
Glacial acetic acid | 1.34 kg CO2 eq/kg | ||
Na2CO3 | 1.87 kg CO2 eq/kg | ||
NaOH | 11.542 kg CO2 eq/kg | ||
Anhydrous sodium sulfate | 0.499 kg CO2 eq/kg | ||
H2O2(27.5%) | 0.202 kg CO2 eq/kg | ||
Chelated dispersing agent | 1.31 kg CO2 eq/kg | ||
Plastic film | 0.13 kg CO2 eq/kg | ||
Plastic bag | 2.3 kg CO2 eq/kg | ||
Tape | 0.041 kg CO2 eq/kg | ||
Sodium thiosulfate | 0.461 kg CO2 eq/kg | (Li et al. 2022) | |
Silicone softener | 1.854 kg CO2 eq/kg | (Wang 2013) | |
Auxiliary chemicals a | 1.854 kg CO2 eq/kg | ||
Glucose | 1.394 kg CO2 eq/kg | (BTBU 2020) | |
PAC/PAM | 2.5 kg CO2 eq/kg | (Yu et al. 2020) | |
Decolorizing agent | 2.5 kg CO2 eq/kg | ||
HCl | 1.4 kg CO2 eq/kg | (Xin et al. 2022) | |
Waste | Wasted wrapper | 0.917 kg CO2 eq/kg | |
Wasted yarn/fabric | 0.917 kg CO2 eq/kg | ||
COD | 1.071 kg CO2 eq/kg | (Cai et al. 2015) | |
Solidified sludge | 0.197 kg CO2 eq/kg | (CPCD 2021) | |
Textile sewage | 9.9 kg CO2 eq/ton |
aAuxiliary chemicals include stabilizer, scouring agent, brightener, oxygen bleach, acid releaser, H2O2 enzyme, deformer, degreaser, detergent, soaping agents, soaping enzyme, and fiber enzyme
Appendix 3 Life cycle inventory (values are presented per functional unit) Life cycle inventory of S1 ~ 25
Category | Input subcategory | Process except wet processing | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Knitting | Spin drying | Tidying | Drying | Setting | Packing | Sewage treatment | ||
Input | Electricity/kW·h | 838 | 69 | 155 | 240 | 172 | 186 | 465 |
Steam/kg | 1053 | 0 | 0 | 2700 | 1827 | 0 | 0 | |
Yarn lubricated oil/kg | 0.67 (S6: 0.9) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Plastic film/kg | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.74 | 0 | |
Plastic bag/kg | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | |
Tape/kg | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.95 | 0 | |
PAC/kg | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15.61 | |
Decolorizing agent/kg | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | |
Glucose/kg | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.21 | |
HCl/kg | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.09 | |
PAM/kg | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.91 | |
Sewage/m3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 168.51 | |
Output | Solidified sludge/kg | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 364.08 |
Wasted wrapper/kg | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.76 | 0 | |
Wasted yarn/kg | 31.09 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Life cycle inventory of S1 ~ 9 in pre-processing
Category | Input subcategory | Wet processing (pre-processing) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 | S7 | S8 | S9 | ||
Input | Electricity/kW·h | 77.8 | 77.7 | 85.5 | 85.5 | 77.7 | 122.3 | 77.67 | 85.5 | 85.4 |
Steam/kg | 4769 | 4056 | 3861 | 3861 | 4269 | 7098 | 4055 | 3669 | 3668 | |
Water/ton | 45 | 47.5 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 80 | 47.5 | 47.5 | 47.5 | |
H2O2(27.5%)/kg | 250 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | |
NaOH(30%)/kg | 50 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | |
Stabilizer/kg | 20 | 0 | 18 | 18 | 0 | 18 | 0 | 18 | 18 | |
Scouring agent/kg | 10 | 0 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 12 | 12 | |
Brightener/kg | 7.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Glacial acetic acid /kg | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Silicone softener/kg | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Oxygen bleach/kg | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | |
Acid releaser/kg | 0 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | |
Sodium thiosulfate/kg | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
H2O2 enzyme/kg | 0 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | |
Deformer/kg | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
Degreaser/kg | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Detergent/kg | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Output | Sewage/t | 25.36 | 31.07 | 28.18 | 30.00 | 32.70 | 28.18 | 26.77 | 32.40 | 28.50 |
COD/kg | 5.07 | 6.21 | 5.64 | 6.00 | 6.54 | 5.64 | 5.35 | 6.48 | 5.70 | |
Wasted fabric/kg | 20.86 | 20.86 | 20.86 | 20.86 | 20.86 | 20.86 | 20.86 | 20.86 | 20.86 | |
Life cycle inventory of S10 ~ 17 in pre-processing
Category | Input subcategory | Wet processing (pre-processing) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S10 | S11 | S12 | S13 | S14 | S15 | S16 | S17 | ||
Input | Electricity/kW·h | 85.5 | 85.5 | 77.7 | 36.9 | 85.4 | 77.7 | 85.4 | 77.7 |
Steam/kg | 3669 | 3669 | 4055 | 3074 | 1930 | 1921 | 1738 | 1921 | |
Water/ton | 47.5 | 47.5 | 47.5 | 47.5 | 25 | 22.5 | 22.5 | 22.5 | |
H2O2(27.5%)/kg | 60 | 60 | 60 | 0 | 40 | 48 | 40 | 48 | |
NaOH(30%)/kg | 60 | 60 | 60 | 0 | 30 | 48 | 30 | 48 | |
Stabilizer/kg | 18 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 12 | 0 | |
Scouring agent/kg | 12 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 0 | |
Oxygen bleach/kg | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 25 | |
Acid releaser/kg | 15 | 15 | 15 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | |
Sodium thiosulfate/kg | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
H2O2 enzyme/kg | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | |
Deformer/kg | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
Detergent/kg | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Output | Sewage/t | 30.18 | 26.36 | 24.23 | 22.90 | 14.09 | 13.73 | 12.47 | 12.68 |
COD/kg | 6.04 | 5.27 | 4.85 | 4.58 | 5.64 | 5.49 | 4.99 | 5.07 | |
Wasted fabric/kg | 20.86 | 20.86 | 20.86 | 20.86 | 20.86 | 20.86 | 20.86 | 20.86 | |
Life cycle inventory of S18 ~ 25 in pre-processing
Category | Input subcategory | Wet processing (pre-processing) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S18 | S19 | S20 | S21 | S22 | S23 | S24 | S25 | ||
Input | Electricity/kW·h | 77.7 | 36.9 | 77.7 | 77.7 | 77.7 | 77.7 | 85.4 | 36.9 |
Steam/kg | 1707 | 1294 | 1707 | 1707 | 1707 | 1707 | 1544 | 1294 | |
Water/ton | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | |
H2O2(27.5%)/kg | 48 | 0 | 48 | 48 | 48 | 48 | 40 | 0 | |
NaOH(30%)/kg | 48 | 0 | 48 | 48 | 48 | 48 | 30 | 0 | |
Stabilizer/kg | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | |
Scouring agent/kg | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | |
Oxygen bleach/kg | 25 | 0 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 0 | 0 | |
Acid releaser/kg | 10 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 0 | |
Sodium thiosulfate/kg | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | |
H2O2 enzyme/kg | 0.4 | 0 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0 | |
Deformer/kg | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
Detergent/kg | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | |
Output | Sewage/t | 9.60 | 10.27 | 9.98 | 9.93 | 9.84 | 9.64 | 8.54 | 8.38 |
COD/kg | 3.84 | 4.11 | 3.99 | 3.97 | 3.94 | 3.86 | 3.42 | 3.35 | |
Wasted fabric/kg | 20.86 | 20.86 | 20.86 | 20.86 | 20.86 | 20.86 | 20.86 | 20.86 | |
Life cycle inventory of S1 ~ 9 in dyeing
Category | Input subcategory | Wet processing (dyeing) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 | S7 | S8 | S9 | ||
Input | Electricity/kW·h | / | 104.9 | 104.9 | 132.1 | 132.1 | 132.0 | 132.1 | 132.1 | 155.3 |
Steam/kg | / | 6390 | 6726 | 10,108 | 10,108 | 10,108 | 5054 | 5054 | 5858 | |
Water/ton | / | 66.5 | 70 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 40 | 40 | 40.5 | |
Dyestuffs/kg | 0 | 0.174 | 1.04 | 1.32 | 5.19 | 7.48 | 13.66 | 22.12 | 23.72 | |
Anhydrous sodium sulfate/kg | / | 100 | 200 | 200 | 300 | 300 | 240 | 420 | 400 | |
Na2CO3/kg | / | 50 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 80 | 175 | 200 | |
Glacial acetic acid /kg | / | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 18 | |
Silicone softener/kg | / | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | |
Soaping agents/kg | / | 5 | 0 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 10 | 2.5 | |
Detergent/kg | / | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 3 | 5 | |
Fiber enzyme/kg | / | 0 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | |
Chelated dispersing agent/kg | / | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 16 | 0 | 4 | |
Output | Sewage/t | / | 38.16 | 40.42 | 39.48 | 41.59 | 42.43 | 22.58 | 23.91 | 18.61 |
COD/kg | / | 14.50 | 15.36 | 15.00 | 15.80 | 16.12 | 13.55 | 14.35 | 11.17 | |
Wasted fabric/kg | / | 41.72 | 41.72 | 41.72 | 41.72 | 41.72 | 41.72 | 41.72 | 41.72 | |
Life cycle inventory of S10 ~ 17 in dyeing
Category | Input subcategory | Wet processing (dyeing) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S10 | S11 | S12 | S13 | S14 | S15 | S16 | S17 | ||
Input | Electricity/kW·h | 155.4 | 155.3 | 155.3 | 155.4 | 155.4 | 155.4 | 155.4 | 155.4 |
Steam/kg | 5858 | 5858 | 5858 | 5858 | 5858 | 5858 | 5858 | 5858 | |
Water/ton | 40.5 | 40.5 | 40.5 | 40.5 | 40.5 | 40.5 | 40.5 | 40.5 | |
Dyestuffs/kg | 24.5 | 24.96 | 25.79 | 26.88 | 29.92 | 32.12 | 34.9 | 34.96 | |
Anhydrous sodium sulfate/kg | 280 | 500 | 400 | 320 | 400 | 640 | 450 | 600 | |
Na2CO3/kg | 140 | 250 | 200 | 160 | 150 | 200 | 150 | 240 | |
Glacial acetic acid /kg | 18 | 22 | 20 | 18 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 20 | |
Silicone softener/kg | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | |
Soaping agents/kg | 3 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 19 | 4 | 3 | 6 | |
Detergent/kg | 10 | 7.8 | 10 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 3.3 | 7.9 | |
Chelated dispersing agent/kg | 0 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 8 | 6 | |
Output | Sewage/t | 18.77 | 18.63 | 18.98 | 18.18 | 18.52 | 17.94 | 18.57 | 17.79 |
COD/kg | 11.26 | 11.18 | 11.39 | 10.91 | 11.11 | 10.76 | 11.14 | 10.67 | |
Wasted fabric/kg | / | 41.72 | 41.72 | 41.72 | 41.72 | 41.72 | 41.72 | 41.72 | |
Life cycle inventory of S18 ~ 25 in dyeing
Category | Input subcategory | Wet processing (dyeing) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S18 | S19 | S20 | S21 | S22 | S23 | S24 | S25 | ||
Input | Electricity/kwh | 155 | 155 | 155 | 155 | 155 | 155 | 155 | 155 |
Steam/kg | 5207 | 5207 | 5207 | 5207 | 5207 | 5207 | 5207 | 5207 | |
Water/ton | 36 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 36 | |
Dyestuffs/kg | 36.78 | 37.44 | 39.3 | 40.54 | 43.35 | 45.04 | 47.4 | 54.11 | |
Anhydrous sodium sulfate/kg | 600 | 640 | 560 | 640 | 600 | 640 | 500 | 700 | |
Na2CO3/kg | 240 | 240 | 210 | 240 | 180 | 240 | 240 | 210 | |
Glacial acetic acid /kg | 20 | 16 | 20 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 20 | 20 | |
Silicone softener/kg | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | |
Soaping agents/kg | 6 | 3 | 7 | 10.1 | 10 | 7 | 11 | 3 | |
Detergent/kg | 7.9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8.5 | 7.1 | 9 | 5.4 | |
Fiber enzyme/kg | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Chelated dispersing agent/kg | 6 | 4 | 16 | 6 | 5 | 10 | 9 | 4 | |
Output | Sewage/t | 16.99 | 16.49 | 16.57 | 16.68 | 16.94 | 16.91 | 16.38 | 15.34 |
COD/kg | 10.19 | 9.89 | 9.94 | 10.01 | 10.16 | 10.15 | 9.83 | 9.20 | |
Wasted fabric/kg | / | 41.72 | 41.72 | 41.72 | 41.72 | 41.72 | 41.72 | 41.72 | |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhu, D., Bao, Y., Ding, X. et al. Unveil the carbon footprint of textiles dyed with different reactive dyestuff recipes from an industrial manufacturing perspective. Int J Life Cycle Assess (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-024-02323-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-024-02323-9