A comparative life cycle assessment of commercially available household silver-enabled polyester textiles

  • Andrea L. HicksEmail author
  • Thomas L. Theis



Silver-enabled textiles use the inherent antimicrobial properties of silver to produce a product with odor reduction capabilities. A touted benefit of these products is the ability to reduce their lifetime environmental impact through reductions in laundering. A comprehensive life cycle assessment is needed to fully understand the potential benefit of reduced laundering, environmental payback period, and potential to shift consumer-laundering behavior.


Three commercially available silver-enabled polyester fabrics are compared to a conventional fabric using life cycle assessment methodology. Sima Pro software along with the Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI) impact categories are used to model the environmental impact of the four textiles (three with added silver, and one conventional textile) throughout their lifetimes. Environmental payback is used to determine the number of reductions of launderings necessary for environmental benefit to be realized from the inclusion of silver. Current literature on laundering motivations and habits is reviewed to yield insight on whether there is the potential for consumers to launder their textiles less frequently.

Results and discussion

The lifetime environmental impact of the three textiles considered varies as a function of the silver content and environmental impact category. In some impact categories, such as global warming potential, the laundering phase has the greatest environmental impact and thus has the potential for the greatest reduction. In other categories, such as ecotoxicity, the most significant impact is due to the percentage of silver that is released into surface water from the textile. In this case, environmental parity (the point at which the environmental impacts are the same) is not always possible to achieve. A review of the literature suggests that the motivation to launder textiles along with the frequency varies significantly across populations and times in history.


Silver-enabled textiles have the potential to reduce the odors produced by unwashed textiles through bacterial inhibition. In some cases, there is the potential to achieve adequate reductions in laundering to compensate for the increased energy and raw materials needed to produce silver-enabled textile. However, frequency of laundering is largely a cultural norm based on perceived cleanliness and is unlikely to be shifted as a function of textile adoption.


Life cycle assessment Nanotechnology Silver Textiles 



The authors acknowledge the support of the US Environmental Protection Agency Assistance Agreement No. RD83558001-0 that funded this research. This work has not been formally reviewed by EPA. The views expressed in this document are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the agency. Neither the EPA nor the authors endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication. The authors would also like to thank Robert Reed of Arizona State University for his experimental silver loss laundering data.


  1. Abeliotis K, Candan C, Amberg C, Ferri A, Osset M, Owens J (2014) Impact of water hardness on consumers’ perception of laundry washing result in five European countries. Int J Consum Stud 39:1–7Google Scholar
  2. Alexander J (2009) History of the medical use of silver. Surg Infect 10:289–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arild A, Brusdal R, Gunnarsen J, Terpstra P, van Kessel I (2003) An investigation of domestic laundry in Europe—habits, hygiene and technical performance. National Institute for Consumer Research, OsloGoogle Scholar
  4. Arvidsson R, Molander S, Sanden B (2011) Impacts of a silver-coated future: particle flow analysis of silver nanoparticle. J Ind Ecol 15:844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bankar A, Joshi B, Kumar A, Zinjarde S (2010) Banana peel extract mediated novel route for the synthesis of silver nanoparticles. Colloid Surf A 368:58–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benn T, Westerhoff P (2008) Nanoparticle silver released into water from commercially available sock fabrics. Environ Sci Technol 42:4133–4139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brumfiel G (2006) Consumer products leap aboard the nano bandwagon. Nature 440:262. doi: 10.1038/440262b
  8. Burri RV, Bellucci A (2008) Public perception of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10:397–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Council for Textile Recycling (2015)
  10. Currall S, King E, Lane N, Madera J, Turner S (2006) What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nat Nanotechnol 1:153–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dune Sciences (2014) Nanoparticle synthesis and attachment. (A. L. Hicks, Interviewer) Eugene, OregonGoogle Scholar
  12. EarthShift (2014) Traci 2 Impact Assessment Method:
  13. El-Rafie M, Ahmed H, Zahran M (2014) Characterization of nanosilver coated cotton fabrics and evaluation of its antibacterial efficacy. Carbohydr Polym 107:174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EMS World Products (2015) Nano Silver Certified Hospital Curtains:
  15. Geranio L, Heuberger M, Nowack B (2009) The behavior of silver nanotextiles during washing. Environ Sci Technol 43:8113–8118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibbs H, Johnston M, Foley J, Holloway T, Monfreda C, Ramankutty N (2008) Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in the tropics: the effects of changing yield and technology. Environ Res Lett 3:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gitipour A, Badawy M, Arambewela M, Miller B, Scheckel K, Elk M (2013) The impact of silver nanoparticles on the composting of municipal solid waste. Environ Sci Technol 47:14385–14393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gram-Hanssen K (2008) Consuming technologies—developing routines. J Clean Prod 16:1181–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gupta N, Fischer A, van der Lans I, Frewer L (2012) Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis. J Nanopart Res 14:857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hedberg J, Skoglund S, Karlsson M, Wold S, Wallinder I, Hedberg Y (2014) Sequential studies of silver released from silver nanoparticles in aqueous media simulating sweat, laundry detergent solutions and surface water. Environ Sci Technol 48:7314–7322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hendren C, Badireddy A, Casman E, Wiesner M (2013) Modeling nanomaterial fate in wastewater treatment: Monte Carlo simulation of silver nanoparticles (nano-Ag). Sci Total Environ 449:418–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hicks A, Theis T (2014) An agent based approach to the potential for rebound resulting from evolution of residential lighting technologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:370–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hicks A, Gilbertson L, Zimmerman J, Theis T (2015) Nano-silver textiles: research gaps and a life cycle analysis of literature. Environ Sci Technol. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01176 Google Scholar
  24. Hicks A, Theis T, Zellner M (2014) Emergent effects of residential lighting choices: prospects for energy savings. J Ind Ecol 19:285–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hill W, Pillsbury D (1939) Argyria—the pharmacology of silver. Williams & Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  26. Huang R, Pei J, Wang L, Wu X, Ding X (2013) Consumer lifestyle approach to quantify CO2 emissions caused by domestic washing clothes. J Fiber Bioeng Inform 6:427–440Google Scholar
  27. Hustvedt G (2011) Review of laundry energy efficiency studies conducted by the US Department of Energy. Int J Consum Stud 35:228–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Impellitteri C, Tolaymat T, Scheckel K (2009) The speciation of silver nanoparticles in antimicrobial fabric before and after exposure to a hypocholorite/detergent solution. J Environ Qual 38:1528–1530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Iravani S (2011) Green synthesis of metal nanoparticles using plants. Green Chem 13:2638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jack T (2013) Laundry routine and resource consumption in Australia. Int J Consum Stud 37:666–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jonker J, Junginger M, Faaij A (2013) Carbon payback period and carbon offset parity point of wood pellet production in the South-eastern United States. GCB Bioenergy. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12056 Google Scholar
  32. Joule E (2011). Fashion-forward thinking: sustainability as a business model at Levi Strauss. Global Business and Organization Excellence 16Google Scholar
  33. Kaegi R, Voegeline A, Sinnet B, Zuleeg S, Burkhardt M, Siegrist H (2011) Behavior of metallic silver nanoparticles in a pilot wastewater treatment plant. Environ Sci Technol 45:3902–3908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kalliala E, Nousianinen P (1999) Life cycle assessment environmental profile of cotton and polyester-cotton fabrics. AUTEX Res J 1(1)Google Scholar
  35. Kim B, Park C, Murayama M, Hockella M Jr (2010) Discovery and characterization of silver sulfide nanoparticles in final sewage sludge products. Environ Sci Technol 44:7509–7514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klasen H (2000a) A historical review of the use of silver in the treatment of burns. II. Renewed interest for silver. Burns 26:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Klasen H (2000b) Historical review of the use of silver in the treatment of burns. I. Early uses. Burns 26:117–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Laitala K, Klepp I, Kjeldsberg M, Eilertsen K (2011) Consumer’s wool wash habits—and opportunities to improve them. National Institute for Consumer Research, OsloGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee H, Jeong S (2005) Bacteriostasis and skin innoxiousness of nanosize silver colloids on textile fabrics. Text Res J 75:551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee H, Yeo S, Jeong S (2003) Antibacterial effect of nanosized colloidal solution on textile fabrics. J Mater Sci Lett 38:2199–2204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Linden A, Carlsson-Kanyama A, Eriksson B (2006) Efficient and inefficient aspects of residential energy behaviour: what are the policy instruments for change? Energy Policy 34:1918–1927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lindsey J (2011) Dare to wear: an exploration of the attitudes and habits of the consumer in regards to garment care and its relationship and effect on the environment. Thesis, Texas State University-San MarcosGoogle Scholar
  43. Liu J, Hurt R (2010) Ion release kinetics and particle persistence in aqueous nano-silver colloids. Environ Sci Technol 44:2169–2175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lombi E, Donner E, Scheckel K, Sekine R, Lorenz C, Von Goetz N (2014) Silver speciation and release in commercial antimicrobial textiles as influenced by washing. Chemosphere 11:352–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lorenz C, Windler L, von Goetz N, Lehmann R, Schuppler M, Hunderbuhler K (2012) Characterization of silver release from commercially available functional (nano)textiles. Chemosphere 89:817–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ma R, Levard C, Judy J, Unrine J, Durenkamp M, Martine B (2014) Fate of zinc oxide and silver nanoparticles in a pilot wastewater treatment plant and in processed biosolids. Environ Sci Technol 48:104–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mahida N, Beal A, Trigg D, Vaughan N, Boswell T (2014) Outbreak of invasive group A streptococccus infection: contaminated patient curtains and cross-infection on an ear, nose and throat ward. J Hosp Infect 87:141–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marette S, Roosen J, Bieberstein A, Blanchemanche S, Vandermoere F (2009) Impact of environmental, societal and health information on consumers’ choices for nanofood. JAFIO 7:11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McQueen R, Xu Y, Mah T (2013) In vivo assessment of odour retention in an antimicrobial silver chloride-treated polyester textile. J Text Inst 104(1):108–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Meyer D, Curran M, Gonzalez M (2011) An examination of silver nanoparticles in socks using screening-level life cycle assessment. J Nanopart Res 13:147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mitrano D, Rimmele E, Wichser A, Erni R, Height M, Nowack B (2014) Presence of nanoparticles in wash water from conventional silver and nano-silver textiles. ACS Nano, Msc: nn-2014-02228w:11–17Google Scholar
  52. Molling J, Seezink J, Teunissen B, Muihrers-Chen I, Borm P (2014) Comparative performance of a panel of commercially available antimicrobial nanocoatings in Europe. Nanotechnol Sci Appl 4(7):97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Murphy C (2008) Sustainability as an emerging design criterion in nanoparticle synthesis and applications. J Mater Chem 18(19):2161–2284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mylan J (2014) Understanding the diffusion of sustainable product-service systems: insights from the sociology of consumption and practice theory. J Clean Prod 97:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Naddafi K, Jabbari H, Chehrehei M (2010) Effect of nanosilver painting on control of hospital air-transmitted microorganisms. Iran J Environ Heath Sci Eng 7(3):223–228Google Scholar
  56. Nieminen E, Linke M, Tobler M, Beke B (2007) EU COST Action 628: life cycle assessment (LCA) of textile products, eco-efficiency and definition of best available technology (BAT) of textile processing. J Clean Prod 15:1259–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pistilli M (2011, September 12). Silver Investing News. Retrieved September 8, 2014, from Nanosilver market growth: Boon or bust for silver prices:
  58. Polygiene (2011) Applying a comparative environmental impact factor (CEIF) for the comparison of polygiene-treated textiles to non-treated textilesGoogle Scholar
  59. Pourzahedi L, Eckelman M (2015a) Environmental life cycle assessment of nanosilver-enabled bandages. Environ Sci Technol 49:361–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pourzahedi L, Eckelman M (2015b) Comparative life cycle assessment of silver nanoparticle synthesis routes. Environ Sci:Nano 2:361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pre Consultants (2014, February 27) Retrieved from SimaPro: World’s Leading LCA Software:
  62. Quaresma P, Soares L, Contar L, Miranda A, Osorio I, Carvalho P (2009) Green photocatalytic synthesis of stable Au and Ag nanoparticles. Green Chem 11:1889–1893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rankine R, Chick J, Harrison G (2006) Energy and carbon audit of a rooftop wind turbine. P I Mech Eng A-J Pow 220:643Google Scholar
  64. Ratte H (1999) Bioaccumulation and toxicity of silver compounds: a review. Environ Toxicol Chem 18(1):89–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Raveendran P, Fu J, Wallen S (2003) Completely “green” synthesis and stabilization of metal nanoparticles. J Am Chem Soc 125:13940–13941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reed R, Zaikova T, Barber A, Simonich M, Hutchinson J, Lankone R, Marco M, Hristovski K, Herckes P, Passantino L, Fairbrother D, Tanguay R, Ranville J, Hutchinson J, Westerhoff P (2016) Potential environmental impacts and antimicrobial efficacy of silver- and nanosilver-containing textiles. Environ Sci Technol 50:4018–4026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Reisch L, Scholl G, Bietz S (2011) ‘Better safe than sorry’: consumer perception of and deliberations on nanotechnologies. Int J Consum Stud 35:644–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rollin F, Kennedy J, Wills J (2011) Consumers and new food technologies. Trends Food Sci Technol 22:99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ronteltap A, Fishcher A, Tobi H (2011) Societal response to nanotechnology: converging technologies—converging societal response research? J Nanopart Res 13:4399–4410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rutala W, Gergen M, Sickbert-Bennett E, Williams D, Weber D (2014) Effectiveness of improved hydrogen peroxide in decontaminating privacy curtains contaminated with multidrug-resistant pathogens. Am J Infect Control 42:426–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Samuel U, Guggenbichler J (2004) Prevention of catheter-related infections: the potential of a new nano-silver impregnated catheter. Int J Antimicrob Agents 23SI:S75–S78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Saouter E, van Hoof G (2002) A database for the life-cycle assessment of Procter & Gamble laundry detergents. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2:103–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sharma V, Yngard R, Lin Y (2009) Silver nanoparticles: green synthesis and their antimicrobial activities. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 145:83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shove E, (2003) Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: the social organization of normality. In N. T. Series, & D. Slater (ed)Google Scholar
  75. Siegrist M, Keller C (2011) Labeling of nanotechnology consumer products can influence risk and benefit perceptions. Risk Anal 31(11)Google Scholar
  76. Siegrist M, Cousin M, Kastenholz H, Wiek A (2007) Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49:459–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H (2008) Consumers’ willingness to buy functional foods. The influence of carrier, benefit and trust. Appetite 51:526–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Smiley S, Hosgood H, Michelson E, Stowe M (2008) Americans’ nanotechnology risk perception: assessing opinion change. J Ind Ecol 12(3):459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Staggers N, McCasky T, Brazelton N, Kennedy R (2008) Nanotechnology: the coming revolution and its implications for consumers, clinicians, and informatics. Nurs Outlook 56(5):268–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Stamminger R (2011) Modeling resource consumption for laundry and dish treatment in individual households for various consumer segments. Energy Effic 4:559–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stawreberg L (2011) Energy efficiency improvements of tumble dryers—technical development, laundry habits and energy labeling. Dissertation, Karlstads Universitet, Technology and Science Environmental and Energy SystemsGoogle Scholar
  82. Thakkar K, Mhatre S, Parikh R (2010) Biological synthesis of metallic nanoparticles. Nomed-Nanotechnol 6:257–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. The Council for Textile Recycling (2014) Retrieved November 7, 2014, from The Council for Textile Recycling :
  84. Tolaymat T, El Badawy A, Genaidy A, Scheckel K, Luxton T, Suidan M (2010) An evidence-based environmental perspective of manufactured silver nanoparticle in synthesis and applications: a systematic review and critical appraisal of peer-reviewed scientific papers. Sci Total Environ 408:999–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tomlinson J, Rizy T (1998) Measured impacts of high efficiency domestic clothes washers in a community. Oak Ridge National Labs, Oak RidgeGoogle Scholar
  86. US EPA (2014, August 5) Retrieved December 29, 2014, from Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI):
  87. von Goetz N, Lorenz C, Windler L, Nowack B, Heuberger M, Hungerbuhler K (2013) Migration of Ag- and TiO2-(nano)particles from textiles into artificial sweat under physical stress: experiments and exposure modeling. Environ Sci Technol 47:9979–9987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Walser T, Demou E, Lang D, Hellweg S (2011) Prospective environmental life cycle assessment of nanosilver T-shirts. Environ Sci Technol 45:4570–4578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Walter N, McQueen R, Keelan M (2014) In vivo assessment of antimicrobial-treated textiles on skin microflora. Int J Cloth Sci Tech 26(4):330–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Woodland R, Whitham D, O’Neil B, Otter S (2010) Microbiological contamination of cubicle curtains in an out-patient podiatry clinic. J Foot Ankle Res 3:26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Yawson R, Kuzma J (2010) Systems mapping of consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology. J Consum Policy 33:299–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Environmental Science and PolicyUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations