The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 21, Issue 12, pp 1776–1788 | Cite as

Statistical analysis of use-phase energy consumption of textile products

  • Sohail Yasin
  • Nemeshwaree Behary
  • Giorgio Rovero
  • Vijay Kumar
UNCERTAINTIES IN LCA

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this work was to present a methodology to assess the energy consumption, specifically the energy utilized in the washing and drying processes, of textile products in their use-phase with the help of statistical tools. Regardless of the environmental impacts associated with the use-phase of textile products, analysis of energy consumption in that phase is still lacking. There is a need to design methodology for identifying the hotspots and parameters influencing the energy consumption in the use-phase of textile products. A pragmatic method that consists of a life-cycle assessment (LCA) framework plus principle component analysis (PCA), extended by Procrustes analysis (PA), is used to determine the energy consumption and minimize the possible uncertainties in the use-phase of textile product systems.

Methods

The LCA plus PCA-PA method employed in this work to analyze the energy consumption of textile products in the use-phase comprises two statistical tools. First, PCA was applied to find the key parameters affecting the results. As an extension of PCA, PA was performed to highlight the most prominent variables within the dataset and extract the maximum amount of information. Lastly, hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) was utilized for the classification of textile products on the basis of energy consumption variables and the similarity of their results.

Results and discussion

Among various energy consuming parameters in the use-phase of a textile product, both geographical and physical aspects can be prominent variables that significantly can affect the results of the energy consumption. After the LCA plus PCA-PA methodology, country of the use-phase in the geographical aspect and in the physical aspect, the fiber type and weight of the products were the influential variables. Hotspots or influential parameters being identified, a number of steps can be taken that can play an important role in decreasing environmental impacts by reducing the energy consumption in the laundering process of textile products during the use-phase.

Conclusions

The methodology of LCA plus PCA-PA for energy consumption in textile products was employed to study the gap in currently available assessments. Using this method, the main influencing energy consuming parameters or hotspots in the use-phase of a textile product system could easily be identified and potential improvements of sustainability can be proposed.

Keywords

Energy consumption Life-cycle assessment Principal component analysis Procrustes analysis Textile products Use-phase 

References

  1. Adrian C (2010) Mistra future fashion-review of life cycle assessments of clothing. 21 October, 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.oakdenehollins.co.uk/media/232/2010_mistra_review_of_life_cycle_assessments_of_clothing.pdf
  2. AISE (2013) The case for the “A.I.S.E Low Temperature Washing” initiative: substantiation Dossier June 2013 AISE, Brussels (2013)Google Scholar
  3. Arild AH, Brusdal R, Halvorsen GJ, Terpstra PMJ, Van K, IAC (2003) An investigation of domestic laundry in Europe-habits, hygiene and technical performance. National Institute for Consumer Research, OsloGoogle Scholar
  4. Baxter MJ, Jackson CM (2001) Variable selection in artifact compositional studies. Archaeometry 43(2):253–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berry J (2002) The effect of income on appliances in U.S. households. official energy statistics from the U.S. government. Energy Information Administration, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Beton A et al (2012) Environmental improvement potential of textiles (IMPRO‐Textiles). JRC, Draft, 2012. Retrieved from; http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/textiles/docs/120423%20IMPRO%20Textiles_Publication%20draft%20v1.pdf
  7. Blackburn RS and Textile Institute (Manchester, England) (2009) Sustainable textiles: life cycle and environmental impact. Woodhead, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. BSR (2009) Apparel industry life cycle carbon mapping. Business for social responsibility. Retrieved from; https://www.bsr.org/…/BSR_Apparel_Supply_Chain_Carbon_Report.pdf
  9. BUWAL (2000) Oekobilanzen – Heizenergie aus Heizoe, Erdgas oder Holz, Schriftenreihe Umwelt no. 315, Bern, 2000Google Scholar
  10. Carre A (2008) Life cycle assessment comparing laundered surgical gowns with polypropylene based disposable gowns. Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  11. Cartwright 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 CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen HL, Burns LD (2006) Environmental analysis of textile products. Cloth Text Res J 24:248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cherrett N, Barrett J, Clemett A, Chadwick M, Chadwick MJ (2005) Ecological footprint and water analysis of cotton, hemp and polyester. Stockholm Environment Institute report prepared for and reviewed by BioRegional Development Group and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF Cymru), Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  14. Ciroth A et al (2002) Geographical and technological differences in life cycle inventories shown by the use of process models for waste incinerators. Part I. Technological and geographical differences. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(5):295–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collins M, Aumônier S (2002) Streamlined life cycle assessment of two Marks & Spencer plc apparel products. Environmental Resources Management, 2002, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Cotton Incorporated, PE International (2012) The life cycle inventory and life cycle assessment of cotton fiber and fabric-full report. Cotton Foundation, AmericaGoogle Scholar
  17. Curran MA (2006) Life cycle assessment: principles and practice. In: 2006, EPA/600/R-06/060. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  18. De Saxcé M, Perwuelz A, Boufateh I, Pesnel S (2010) Scénarios pour la diminution de l’impact environnemental des textiles dans leur phase d’utilisation. Materiaux 2010, 18-22 Octobre 2010 Nantes, FranceGoogle Scholar
  19. De Saxcé M, Rabenasolo B and Perwuelz A (2014) Assessment and improvement of the appropriateness of an LCI data set on a system level – application to textile manufacturing. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(4):950–961Google Scholar
  20. Defra (2006) Recycling of low grade clothing waste. waste strategy project WRT152. Retrieved from; http://www.oakdenehollins.co.uk/pdf/defr01_058_low_grade_clothing-public_v2.pdf
  21. Ecoinvent (2010) Ecoinvent data v2.2. Ecoinvent reports No.1-25. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DubendorfGoogle Scholar
  22. Eriksson L, Umetrics AB (2006) Multi- and megavariate data analysis. Umetrics AB, Umeå, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  23. Faberi S (2007) Domestic washing machines and dishwashers. Preparatory studies for Ecodesign requirements of EuPGoogle Scholar
  24. Fisher T et al (2008) Public understanding of sustainable clothing: a report to the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs; Defra, London. Available at: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=EV0405_7666_FRP.pdf
  25. Fletcher K (2008) Sustainable fashion and textiles: design journeys Kate Fletcher., Earthscan PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  26. Franklin Associates Ltd. (1993) Life cycle analysis (LCA): woman’s knit polyester blouse. Prepared for American Fibre Manufacturers Association. Retrieved from http://www.fibersource.com/f-tutor/LCA-Page.htm
  27. Frischknecht R, Heijungs R, Hofstetter P (1998) Einstein’s lessons for energy accounting in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3:266–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frischknecht R et al (2015) Cumulative energy demand in LCA: the energy harvested approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(7):957–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Procter and Gamble (1999) Global variations in automatic washing. S.l.: Proctor and Gamble, Single summary slideGoogle Scholar
  30. Georgakellos A (2005) Evaluation of life cycle inventory results using critical volume aggregation and polygon-based interpretation. J Clean Prod 13:567–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gordenker A (2010) Japan Times. Laundry Logic. [Online] September 16, 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2010/09/16/reference/laundry-logic/
  32. Granello S et al (2015) Consumer behaviour on washing, a Mistra Future Fasion project 4 reportGoogle Scholar
  33. Guinée B (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrectGoogle Scholar
  34. Gutierrez E, Lozano S, Moreira M, Feijoo G (2010) Assessing relationships among life-cycle environmental impacts with dimension reduction techniques. J Environ Manag 91(4):1002–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hasanbeigi A, Price L (2012) A review of energy use and energy efficiency technologies for the textile industry. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16(6):3648–3665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hermann G, Kroeze C, Jawjit W (2007) Assessing environmental performance by combining life cycle assessment, multi-criteria analysis and environmental performance indicators. J Clean Prod 15(18):1787–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ison E, Miller A (2000) The use of LCA to introduce life-cycle thinking into decision-making for the purchase of medical devices in the NHS. J Env Ass Pol Manag 2(4):453–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jackson J (1991) A user guide to principal components. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Julia KS, Damien F, Olivier J, Suren E (2009) A spatially explicit life cycle inventory of the global textile chain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:443–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kalliala EM, Nousiainen P (1999) Life cycle assessment environmental profile of cotton and polyester-cotton fabrics. AUTEX Res J 1(1):8–20Google Scholar
  41. Kim J, Changsang Y, Yaewon P, Chung HP (2015) Post-consumer energy consumption of textile products during ‘use’ phase of the lifecycle. Fibers Polym 16(4):926–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krzanowski WJ (1987) Selection of variables to preserve multivariate data structure, using principal components. Appl Statist 36(1):22–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Krzanowski WJ (1996) A stopping rule for structure-preserving variable selection. Stat Compt 6(1):51–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Laitala K (2014) Clothing consumption an interdisciplinary approach to design for environmental improvement. Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  45. Laitala K, Boks C, Klepp IG (2011) Potential for environmental improvements in laundering. Int J Consum Stud 35(2):254–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lefèvre C (2009) Ecodesign of laundry dryers. Preparatory studies for Ecodesign requirements Final Report March 2009, France: Price Waterhouse Coopers AdvisoryGoogle Scholar
  47. Levi Strauss & Co. (2009) A product lifecycle approach to sustainability. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/A-Product-Lifecyle-Approach-to-Sustainability.pdf
  48. Li T, Zhang H, Yuan C, Liu Z, Fan C (2012) A PCA-based method for construction of composite sustainability indicators. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(5):593–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Madsen J, Hartlin B, Perumalpillai S, Selby S, Aumônier S (2007) Mapping of evidence on sustainable development impacts that occur in life cycles of clothing: a report to DEFRA. Environmental Resources Management Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. Mark et al (2010) Cumulative energy demand as predictor for the environmental burden of commodity production. Environ Sci Technol (44):2189–2196Google Scholar
  51. Millet D, Bistagnino L, Lanzavecchia C, Camous R, Poldma T (2007) Does the potential of the use of LCA match the design team needs? J Clean Prod 15:335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mouron P, Nemecek T, Scholz R, Weber O (2006) Management influence on environmental impacts in an apple production system on Swiss fruit farms: combining life cycle assessment with statistical risk assessment. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:311–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Muthu SS (2015) Handbook of sustainable apparel production. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nielsen R, Schmidt A (2014) Changing consumer behaviour towards increased prevention of textile waste. FORCE Technology, 2014. doi:10.6027/NA2014-927 NA2014:927 ISSN 2311-0562
  55. Nordic Council of Ministers (2007) Impact of energy labelling on household appliances. Nordic Council of Ministers, CopenhagenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pakula C, Stamminger R (2010) Electricity and water consumption for laundry washing by washing machine worldwide. Energy Efficiency 3:365–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Park YS, Egilmez G, Kucukvar M (2015) A novel life cycle-based principal component analysis framework for eco-efficiency analysis: case of the U.S. manufacturing and transportation nexus. J Clean Prod 92(4):327–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. PE International (2012) GaBi 6 software and databases. Leinfelden Echterdingen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  59. Perwuelz A, Duhamel F (2010) Utilisation de l’ACV dans l’industrie textile : le projet ACVTex Congrès Ecotechnologies, June 2010, Lille grand PalaisGoogle Scholar
  60. Pieragostini C, Mussati MC, Aguirre P (2012) On process optimization considering LCA methodology. J Environ Manage 96:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pizzol M, Christensen P, Schmidt J, Thomsen M (2011) Impacts of “metals” on human health: a comparison between nine different methodologies for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). J Clean Prod 19(6-7):646–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ponder CS (2009) Life cycle inventory analysis of medical textiles and their role in prevention of nosocomial infections. Doctoral dissertation. North Carolina State University. Raleigh, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  63. Ponder CS (2010) Cradle-to-use life cycle inventory of medical gowns. Sustainable textiles and medical protections conference UC Davis. Retrieved from http://nsf-muses.ucdavis.edu/pdf/STAMPconference/CPonder%20Gown%20Comparison%20v2.pdf
  64. Richard B, John P (2004) Life cycle analysis of cotton towels: impact of domestic laundering and recommendations for extending periods between washing. Green Chem 6:G59–G61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Roos S, Gustav S, Bahareh Z, Greg P (2015) Environmental assessment of Swedish fashion consumption. Five garments—sustainable futuresGoogle Scholar
  66. Shove E (2003) Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: the social organization of normality. Berg, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  67. Smith GG, Barker RH (1995) Life cycle analysis of a polyester garment. Resour Conserv Recycl 14:233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sohail Y, Perwuelz A, Nemeshwaree B (2014) A case study of life cycle inventory of cotton curtain. Proceedings of Autex 2014Google Scholar
  69. Søren L et al (2007) EDIPTEX—Environmental assessment of textiles. Working Report No. 24 2007Google Scholar
  70. Sotirios B, Dimitrios G (2013) A probabilistic framework for the evaluation of products’ environmental performance using life cycle approach and principal component analysis. J Clean Prod 42:103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Swart P, Alvarenga RAF, Dewulf J (2014) Abiotic resource use. In: Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MAJ (ed) Encyclopedia of LCA, Vol. IV: Life cycle impact assessment. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  72. Tenney MW, Carberry JB (1981) Detergency-theory and test methods: detergents and our environment. Cutler WG, Davis RC (eds) Marcel Dekker, New York and Basel, pp 900–940Google Scholar
  73. Van der Velden et al (2014) LCA benchmarking study on textiles made of cotton, polyester, nylon, acryl, or elastane. Int J Life Cycle Assess (19):331–356Google Scholar
  74. Vattenfall (2015) Tvätt och Tork. Available at: http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/tvatt-ochtork.htm
  75. Vinson LJ (1981) Detergency-theory and test methods: detergents and our environment. Cutler WG, Davis RC (eds) Marcel Dekker, New York and Basel, pp 679–704Google Scholar
  76. Vizcarra KEL, Lio PH (1994) A life-cycle inventory of baby diapers subject to Canadian conditions. Environ Toxicol Chem 13(10):1707–1716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vyas S, Kumaranayake L (2006) Constructing socio-economic status indices: how to use principal components analysis. Health Policy Plan 21(6):459–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ward JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping for evaluating clustering methods. J Am Stat Assoc 58:236–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yilmaz IH, Akcaoz, Ozkan B (2005) An analysis of energy use and input costs for cotton production in Turkey. Renew Energ (30):145–155Google Scholar
  80. Zhang Y, Xin L, Rufeng X, Zengwei Y (2015) Life cycle assessment of cotton t-shirts in China. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:994–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sohail Yasin
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Nemeshwaree Behary
    • 1
    • 2
  • Giorgio Rovero
    • 3
  • Vijay Kumar
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.ENSAIT, GEMTEXRoubaixFrance
  2. 2.Université Lille Nord de FranceLilleFrance
  3. 3.Politecnico di TorinoBiellaItaly

Personalised recommendations