Advertisement

Fibers and Polymers

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 590–596 | Cite as

Sustainable care of textile products and its environmental impact: Tumble-drying and ironing processes

  • Changsang Yun
  • Sarif Patwary
  • Melody L. A. LeHew
  • Jooyoun Kim
Article

Abstract

Despite the growing attention on sustainable consumption of textile and apparel products, little information is available for consumers guiding their decisions for sustainable consumption and product care. The objective of this study is to develop the logical processes to assess the environmental and economic impacts made by the textile product care and to measure the CO2 eq. and utility cost during drying and ironing procedures. Particularly, the influence of quick-drying property and durable-press finish on product care and their impacts on CO2 eq. and utility cost were evaluated. Results indicated quick-drying and hydrophobic fibers consumed less electricity during tumble-drying as it contained less amount of water after spinning for dehydration. A higher spin speed was favorable for saving energy during tumble-drying, as less water remained in wet laundry after spinning. While cotton fabrics were obviously wrinkled after laundering, a polyester/cotton blend in 65/35 with durable-press finish maintained smoothness grade 4 or 5 during ten times laundering period. With a conservative criterion where a grade lower than 5 needs ironing, a polyester/cotton 65/35 with durable-press finish was judged to need ironing once in two cycles of laundering. This can save about 64 % of utility and CO2 eq. that the cotton fabric would produce in the ironing process. It is anticipated that this study provides information that is useful to consumers in their decision making for sustainable consumption.

Keywords

Quick-drying Durable-press Drying Ironing Monetary cost CO2 equivalents (CO2 eq.) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    K. Fletcher, “Sustainable Fashion & Textiles: Design Journeys”, pp.3–6, Gutenberg Press, Malta, 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Caniato, M. Caridi, L. Crippa, and A. Moretto, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 135, 659 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Kim, C. Yun, Y. Park, and C. H. Park, Fiber. Polym., 16, 926 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Saxena, A. S. M. Raja, and A. Arputharaj, “Challenges in Sustainable Wet Processing of Textiles”, Retrieved September 19, 2016, from http://www.springer.com/cda/ content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9789811021848-c2.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1584721-p180182083Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. M. Allwood, S. E. Laursen, C. M. Rodriguez, and N. M. Bocken, “Well Dressed? The Present and Future Sustainability of Clothing and Textiles in the United Kingdom”, pp.8–14, University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing, Cambridge, 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. M. Cullen and J. M. Allwood, J. Ind. Ecol., 13, 27 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Y. Yamaguchi, E. Seii, M. Itagaki, and M. Nagayama, Int. J. Consum. Stud., 35, 243 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Anderson, M. LeHew, K. Hiller, S. Sutheimer, and G. Hustvedt, “Professional Development and Education for Apparel and Textiles Educators”, Retrieved September 19, 2016, from http://athenas.ksu.eduGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Gwilt and T. Rissanen, “Shaping Sustainable Fashion: Changing the Way We Make and Use Clothes”, pp.99–118, Earthscan from Routledge, New York, 2011.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. K. Moon, C. S. Lai, E. Y. Lam, and J. M. T. Chang, J. Text. Inst., 106, 939 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Harris, H. Roby, and S. Dibb, Int. J. Consum. Stud., 40, 309 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. M. Armstrong, K. Niinimake, S. Kujala, E. Karell, and C. Lang, J. Clean. Prod., 97, 30 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    V. A. Dehabadi, H. J. Buschmann, and J. S. Gutmann, Text. Res. J., 83, 1974 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    I. Holme, J. Text. Inst., 84, 520 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. D. Schindler and P. Hauser, “Chemical Finishing of Textiles”, pp.51–72, Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, “Reducing the Environmental Impact of Clothes Cleaning”, from http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document= EV0419_8628_FRP.pdf, Retrieved August 26, 2016.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Y. L. Lam, C. W. Kan, and C. W. M. Yuen, Text. Res. J., 81, 482 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Hashem, M. H. Elshakankery, S. M. A. El-Aziz, M. M. G. Fouda, and H. M. Fahmy, Carbohydr. Polym., 86, 1692 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Y. Zhang, H. Wang, C. Zhang, and Y. Chen, J. Mater. Sci., 42, 8035 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    K. Kajiwara, R. Nori, and M. Okamoto, J. Text. Inst., 91, 32 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    F. Wang, X. Zhou, and S. Wang, Fibres Text. East Eur., 17, 46 (2009).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. Khoddami, M. I. Soleimani, and H. Gong, Text. Res. J., 81, 2006 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Dave, R. Kumar, and H. C. Srivastava, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 33, 455 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    B. Becerir, E. Karaca, and S. Omeroglu, Color. Technol., 123, 252 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. Kim, Y. Park, C. Yun, and C. H. Park, Energ. Effic., 8, 905 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    C. Yun, M. I. Islam, M. LeHew, and J. Kim, Fiber. Polym., 17, 1296 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    United States Department of Energy, “Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential Clothes Washers”, Retrieved August 26, 2016, from http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/ 2014/04/f14/rcw_tp_nopr.pdfGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    International Organization for Standardization, “Textiles–Standard Atmospheres for Conditioning and Testing”, ISO 139:2005(E), 2005.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    International Electrotechnical Commission, “Clothes Washing Machines for Household Use–Methods for Measuring the Performance”, IEC 60456 Edition 5.0, 2010.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists, “Smoothness Appearance of Fabrics after Repeated Home Laundering”, AATCC Test Method 124-2014, 2014.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Pollution Prevention Tools and Calculators”, Retrieved August 26, 2016, from http://www.epa.gov/p2/pollution-preventiontools-and-calculators#calcGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Fiber Society and Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Changsang Yun
    • 1
  • Sarif Patwary
    • 1
  • Melody L. A. LeHew
    • 1
  • Jooyoun Kim
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Apparel, Textiles, and Interior DesignKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations