Enzymes in textile processing

2 12 2011

Humankind has used enzymes for thousands of years to carry out important chemical reactions for making products such as cheese, beer, and wine. Bread and yogurt also owe their flavor and texture to a range of enzyme producing organisms that were domesticated many years ago.

In the textile industry, one of the first areas which enzyme research opened up was the field of desizing of textiles.  A size is a substance that coats and strengthens the fibers to prevent damage during the weaving process. Size is usually applied to the warp yarn, since this is particularly prone to mechanical strain during weaving.   The size must be removed before a fabric can be bleached and dyed, since it affects the uniformity of wet processing. Previously, in order to remove the size, textiles were treated with acid, alkali or oxidising agents, or soaked in water for several days so that naturally occurring microorganisms could break down the starch. However, both of these methods were difficult to control and sometimes damaged or discoloured the material. But by using enzymes, which are specific for starch, the size can be removed without damaging the fibers.

Enzymes used in textile processing - photo from Novozymes

It represented great progress, therefore, when crude enzyme extracts in the form of malt extract, or later, in the form of pancreas extract, were first used to carry out desizing.  Bacterial amylase derived from Bacillus subtilis  was used for desizing  as early as 1917. Amylase is a hydrolytic enzyme which catalyses the breakdown of dietary starch to short chain sugars, dextrose  and maltose.

Enzymes have been used increasingly in the textile industry since the late 1980s. Many of the enzymes developed in the last 20 years are able to replace chemicals used by mills. The first major breakthrough was when enzymes were introduced for stonewashing jeans in 1987 – because more than one billion pairs of denim jeans require some sort of pre-wash treatment every year. Within a few years, the majority of denim finishing laundries had switched from pumice stones to enzymes.

Today, enzymes are used to  treat and modify fibers, particularly during textile processing and in caring for textiles afterwards.  They are used to enhance the preparation of cotton for weaving, reduce impurities, minimize “pulls” in fabric, or as pre-treatment before dying to reduce rinsing time and improve color quality.  New processing applications have been developed for:

  • Scouring (the process of removing natural waxes, pectins, fats and other impurities from the surface of fibers), which gives a fabric a high and even wet ability so that it can be bleached and dyed successfully. Today, highly alkaline chemicals (such as caustic soda) are used for scouring. These chemicals not only remove the non-cellulosic impurities from the cotton, but also attack the cellulose leading to heavy strength loss and weight loss in the fabric. Furthermore, using these hazardous chemicals result in high COD (chemical oxygen demand) and BOD (biological oxygen demand)  in the waste water. Recently a new enzymatic scouring process known as ‘Bio-Scouring’ is being used in textile wet-processing with which all non-cellulosic components from native cotton are completely or partially removed. After this Bio-Scouring process, the cotton has an intact cellulose structure, with lower weight loss and strength loss. The fabric gives better wetting and penetration properties, making the subsequent bleach process easy and  giving much better dye uptake.
    • One of the newest products, PrimaGreen® EcoScour from Genencor, offers sustainability advantages for eco-scouring in cotton pretreatment, including 30 percent water savings and 60 percent energy savings compared to standard processing. In addition, the mild processing conditions result in improved fabric quality and enhanced color brightness after dyeing.
  • Bleaching – When bleaching cotton, a lot of chemicals, energy and water are part of the process. The company Huntsman has developed a wetter/stabilizer that maximizes the wetting and detergency of the bleaching process and a one-bath caustic neutralizer and peroxide remover in order to shorten the bleaching cycle, reduce energy and water required and deliver more consistent bleaching results. They have developed surfactants that are environmentally friendly (in that they do not contain Alkylphenol ethoxylates), and the system is both Oeko-Tex and GOTS approved.  After fabric or yarn bleaching, residues of hydrogen peroxide are left in the bath, and need to be completely removed prior to the dyeingprocess, using a step called bleach cleanup.  The traditional method is to neutralize the bleach with a reducing agent, but the dose has to be controlled precisely. Incomplete peroxide removal results in poor dyeing with distinct change of color shade and intensity, as well as patchy, inconsistent dye distribution. Enzymes used for bleach clean-up ensure that residual hydrogen peroxide from the bleaching process is removed efficiently – a small dose of catalase breaks hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen.  This results in cleaner waste water and reduced water consumption.
    • In 2010, a life-cycle assessment was completed comparing PrimaGreen enzymatic bleaching to conventional textile bleaching methods. According to this LCA, if the enzymatic system were to see wide scale global adoption, the potential savings in freshwater consumption could be up to 10 trillion liters of water annually, and greenhouse gas reductions could range from 10-30 million metric tons. (1)
  • Biofinishing or biopolishing (removing fiber fuzz and pills from fabric surface) –  enzymatic biofinishing yields a cleaner surface, softer handfeel, reduces pilling and increases luster;
  • Denim finishing – In the traditional stonewashing process, the blue denim was faded by the abrasive action of pumice stones on the garment surface. Nowadays, denim finishers are using a special cellulase.  Cellulase works by loosening the indigo dye on the denim in a process known as ‘Bio-Stonewashing’. A small dose of enzyme can replace several kilograms of pumice stones. The use of less pumice stones results in less damage to garment, machine and less pumice dust in the laundry environment; in addition, it’s possible to fade denim without risk of damaging the garment.
  • European scientists have just announced a new and environmentally friendly way to produce textile dyes using enzymes from fungi. (2)

Because of the properties of enzymes, they make the textile manufacturing process much more  environmentally benign. (3)   Generally, they:

  1. operate under milder conditions (temperature and pH) than conventional process chemicals – this results in lower energy costs ( up to 120 kg CO2 savings per ton of textile produced) (4) ;
  2. save water – reduction of water usage up to 19,000 liters per ton of textiles bleached;
  3. are an alternative for toxic chemicals, making wastewater easier and cheaper to treat.
  4.  are easy to control;  do not attack the fiber structure with resulting loss of weight, resulting in better quality of material;
  5. better and more uniform affinity for dyes;
  6. contribute to safer working conditions through elimination of chemical treatments during production processes;
  7. are fully biodegradable.

So why is there a ruckus about enzymes being used in textile processing by GOTS and other organic certifying agencies?

(1)   http://primagreen.genencor.com/sustainability/lca_results/

(2)   http://www.just-style.com/news/eco-friendly-textile-dyes-use-enzymes-from-fungi_id112195.aspx

(3)   http://www.textiletodaybd.com/index.php?pid=magazine&id=52

(4)  http://www.europabio.org/sites/default/files/pages/lutz-walter-benefits-from-white-biotechnology-applications-in-the-european-textile-and-clothing-industry.pdf

Advertisements




Green backlash?

10 11 2011

I just read an article about “green marketing” and how the manufacturer should downplay the green aspects of a product because “very few Americans have ever bought stuff because they want to
save the planet.”[1]

And I agree that most people just want their stuff, not a sermon.

But when I hear something along the lines of “we love your fabrics, but we’re looking for a particular shade of …” my heart drops – because I realize the speaker does not really believe that his
fabric choices are making a direct impact on him or his clients.   He does not believe that buying a product that pollutes our groundwater, contributes to global warming, contains chemicals which are known to be harmful to humans (and which might well have long term impacts on him), and all too often employs children who should be in school helping us fight the enormous problems we face – well, he doesn’t believe each purchase simply ensures that the same products will continue to be made!

Because what you buy is what gets produced.   It may be a long, circuitous way of making a
personal impact on you, but it happens nevertheless.

Why don’t people recognize this?

Green lifestyle expert Danny Seo says the main reason people choose not to buy green is:  they’re selfish.[2]  If there is not a tangible benefit to wearing organic cotton, or changing to organic bedding, Seo says people literally will not buy into it.  “All you know is that you have done something better for the planet. We are selfish, and want to know what we are getting out of it. That is why something like organic cotton will never work, because there is no direct link to why people should want to do this.”  And unlike a Prius, organic clothing or bedding isn’t something one can point to and use to improve their status – or promote their “greener than thou” lifestyle.

But Danny Seo doesn’t know about textile processing – because that organic cotton, if processed conventionally, contains chemicals – 27% by weight of the fabric to be exact –  which most definitely will allow you to make a direct link to what people are getting out of it – from asthma and allergies to cancers and worse.

To cite just a few examples:

  • The American Contact Dermatitis Society has an interesting web
    site for people suffering from formaldehyde resins in fabrics[3],
  • studies have found dioxin which leached from clothing – a potent
    carcinogen – on the skin of participants [4]
  • and women working in textile factories which produce acrylic
    fibers have seven times the rate of breast cancer as the normal population[5].

Textile processing uses some of the most potent and dangerous chemicals known – and they remain in the fabrics we live with.  This becomes part of the chemical soup we’re all exposed to each day, and which we believe is changing us in many ways, not all for the better.  We don’t just absorb synthetic chemicals one at a time during the day.  We’re exposed to hundreds of chemicals as a result of using a wide array of consumer products, many of which contain the same chemicals as are found in fabrics.  We are exposed to a variety of stressors – and textiles are one of the stressors, among others such as:

  • Automotive exhaust
  • Cleaning products
  • Chemicals in treated water
  • Cosmetics
  • Environmental pollution
  • Food
  • Insect repellents
  •  Prescription drugs
  • solvents
  • Ultraviolet radiation

As we absorb tiny amounts of chemicals repeatedly from  multiple sources, they might add up until they reach a tipping point.  Add to this what Drs. Anita and Paul Clement call the “black hole” of ignorance about a key fact in toxicology:  that toxins make each other worse.  “A small dose of mercury that kills 1 in 100 rats and a dose of aluminum that kills 1 in 100 rats, when combined, have a striking effect: all the rats die.“

So how can you, as an individual, change it – how can one person do anything to change the world? Margaret Meade says that committed people, banding together, is the only thing that really
ever has.

The writer Fritjof Capra says that we need to be governed “by a metaphor that says we are part of a continuously evolving and interrelated system”.  We need to start thinking of the world as a system, a cyclical system of interconnections, a web of connections— literally “the web of life.”

And it must be understood that this is a long-term project, not to be mistaken for a marketing trend like one furnishings manufacturer told us. (“Green?” he said. “Yes, well, we did that last year, but we’re doing something really exciting this year!”) In fact, green is only a part of it, a central part that must deal with environmentally benign materials and processes, restoration, recycling, reclaiming:  all those things we have to do to remedy the damage we’ve done to the natural environment and to ourselves in it.

Hope for the future springs from witnessing small reversals of the damage we have caused,  as Victor Papanek says in The Green Imperative.    These times, he says,  also call for a sense of optimism and a willingness to act without full understanding but with a faith in the effect of small individual actions on the global picture.

Remember that each time you purchase something,  you’re ensuring that the product you bought will keep being produced, in the same  way.  If you support new ideas, find creative ways to use something or insist that what you buy meets certain parameters, then new research will be done to
meet consumer demand and new processes will be developed that don’t leave a legacy of destruction.

Lots of people, individually and together, made a difference in the way our foods are grown and processed.  Organic foods went from gnarly to beautiful, and now we’re becoming healthier and our land is being replenished.  It can be done if the individual believes in his own importance, and believes that each purchasing decision is a vote – for clean air and water and safe products – a vote literally for our future.  Or not.


[1]
Shelton, Suzanne, “Green Marketing and the Death of Curmudgeonly Contrariness”,
GreenBiz, May 19, 2011.

[2]
Kate Rogers, “Why People Opt Against Going Green”, FOXBusiness, November 4,
2011; http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/11/04/why-people-opt-against-going-green/

[4] “Dioxins and Dioxin-like Persistent Organic Pollutants in Textiles and Chemicals in the
Textile Sector”  Bostjan Krizanec and Alenka Majcen Le Marechal,
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Smetanova 17, SI-2000
Maribor, Slovenia; January 24, 2006

[5]  Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2010,
67:263-269 doi: 10.1136/oem.2009.049817
SEE ALSO:  http://www.breastcancer.org/risk/new_research/20100401b.jsp
AND http://www.medpagetoday.com/Oncology/BreastCancer/19321





Why use organic fabrics for your new baby?

5 10 2011

Illnesses — including remarkable combinations of symptoms — are on the rise.

  • Over the past 50 years, there has been a steady increase in the incidence of children developing cancer[1], asthma[2], attention deficit disorders[3], allergies[4], autoimmune disorders[5],  and others.

So too are the numbers of chemicals getting mixed inside us (studies have shown that babies are born pre-polluted)[6].   Chemicals accumulate, interact within the body, cause illness.

  • This is due to industrial chemicals being used in products that weren’t even formulated prior to about 1950.  Our children are subjected to an endless barrage of artificial pathogens that tax their systems to the max.

Is there a connection between the rise in illnesses and products you use in your home?

Yes.

  • But inadequate data exists regarding the chronic (long term, low level) health risks of most chemicals, and proving an absolute link between chemicals and these disorders isn’t easy, because in most cases it’s a slow-brewing condition that can smolder for decades before symptoms appear.  Furthermore, the timing of toxic exposure plays a much more significant role than previously recognized – babies exposed during critical periods of development often have a more severe reaction than those exposed at other times.

The chemicals used in textile processing are among the most toxic known, yet the fabrics themselves are often overlooked as a source of pollution.

Using organic products (like fabrics) is especially important for children, because children tend to be more influenced by their environment than adults.  Children are still developing, and many of these developmental processes are very sensitive to environmental contaminants, which can easily disrupt development.  Also, children take in much more of their environment relative to their body weight.   This amount, called the dose, has a much greater effect on children than on the adults around them, because children’s bodies are much smaller.  And finally, children tend to come in contact with environmental contaminants more often than adults do, simply because of their habits – like the two year olds who put everything in their mouths, or toddlers who spend a lot of time in the dust on the floor, where contaminants collect.

In outfitting your nursery, you see lots of information about baby products – lotions, powders, foods.  But please remember that there are other products that impact your child’s health, such as mattresses and fabrics.  You almost never hear somebody mention fabrics as a source of pollution – are they really so important?  Remembering that new studies are demonstrating that even nano doses of chemicals can contribute to disease over time, there are also many studies which specifically linked diseases to chemicals found in textiles:

  • In 2007, The National Institutes of health and the University of Washington released the findings of a 14 year study that demonstrates those who work with textiles were significantly more likely to die from an autoimmune disease than people who didn’t.[7]
  • A study by The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health found a link in textile workers between length of exposure to formaldehyde and leukemia deaths.[8]
  • Women who work in textile factories with acrylic fibers have seven times the risk of developing breast cancer than does the normal population.[9]
  • Studies have shown that if children are exposed to lead, either in the womb or in early childhood, their brains are likely to be smaller.[10] Note:  lead is a common component in textile dyestuffs.
  • Many of the chemicals found in fabrics (which are, after all, about 27% synthetic chemicals, by weight) are known to have negative health effects, such as:
    • Disruptions during development (including autism, which now occurs in 1 of every 110 births in the US); attention deficit disorders (ADD) and hyperactivity (ADHD).   Chemicals commonly used in textiles which contribute:
  • Breathing difficulties, including asthma ( in children under 5 asthma has increased 160%  between 1980-1994[11])  and allergies. Chemicals used in textiles which contribute:
    • Formaldehyde, other aldehydes
    • Benzene, toluene
    • phthalates
  • Cancer  –  all childhood cancers have grown at about 1% per year for the past two decades[12]; the environmental attributable fraction of childhood cancer can be between 5% and 90%, depending on the type of cancer[13].  Chemicals linked to cancers, all of which are used in textile processing:
    • Formaldehyde
    • Lead, cadmium
    • Pesticides
    • Benzene
    • Vinyl chloride

So how do you try to limit your child’s exposure to this chemical contamination?

  • Our #1 recommendation is to use only natural fiber fabrics, rather than synthetics (including those ubiquitous cotton/poly blends), which are petroleum based and made entirely of toxic chemicals.   On top of that, synthetics are highly flammable.  So ditch the synthetics.
  • And don’t think that a fabric made of “organic cotton” is safe, because that doesn’t address the question of processing, where all the chemical contamination occurs.  If you use natural fibers, try to find GOTS  or Oeko Tex certified fabrics.
  • Don’t buy clothing or bedding (or anything made of fabric) that has a stain resistant or wrinkle resistant finish on it:  stain resistant finishes contain perfluorochemicals (Teflon, Scotchguard, Stainmaster, Crypton, Nanotex, Gore-Tex) and wrinkle resistant finishes use formaldehyde.
  • Crib mattresses are often made of polyurethane foam enclosed in vinyl covers.  These plastic products are made by combining highly toxic chemicals together to form the final material. When your child is asleep, every breath pulls in air that is literally inches away from the petroleum chemical materials used in the manufacturing of the bed itself.  With each breath, these chemical molecules are pulled across the child’s airways and then transferred to the blood from deep within the lungs. This process is repeated with each breath 365 nights a year.[14]
    Best choice:  Buy a natural latex core covered in organic GOTS or Oeko Tex certified fabric.
  • Sleepwear, bedding, even curtains and upholstery fabric – because they’re  made of fabric!  Why should you use organic fabrics – not just fabrics made with organic fibers –  for your baby?  The skin is the largest organ of the body and the skin allows many chemicals to pass into your baby through absorption.  Also, a baby’s skin is thinner and more permeable than an adult’s skin.  Not to mention the fact that many chemicals evaporate, to be breathed in.   Best choice:  GOTS or Oeko Tex certified fabrics.
  • Diapers – first choice would be organic diapers made of natural fibers (GOTS or Oeko Tex certified) – even though it probably means you’ll have to do the diaper laundering.   Hey, there are worse things.

[1] Reinberg,
“US Cancer Rates Continue to Fall”, Business Week, March 31, 2011; all
childhood cancers have grown at about 1% per year for the past two decades[1]

[5]
Type 1 diabetes has increased fivefold in past 40 years, in children 4 and
under, it’s increasing 6% per year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031403386.html

[6]
Goodman, Sarah,  “Tests Find More than
200 Chemicals in Newborn Umbilical Cord Blood”, Scientific American, December,
2009.

[7]
Nakazawa, Donna Jackson, “Diseases Like Mine Are a Growing Hazard”, Washington
Post
, March 16, 2008.

[8]
Pinkerton, LE, Hein, MJ and Stayner, LT, “Mortality among a cohort of garment
workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update”, Occupational Environmental
Medicine, 2004 March, 61(3): 193-200.

[9]
Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2010, 67:263-269 doi:
10.1136/oem.2009.049817  SEE ALSO:  http://www.breastcancer.org/risk/new_research/20100401b.jsp  AND http://www.medpagetoday.com/Oncology/BreastCancer/19321

[10]
Dietrich, KN et al, “Decreased Brain Volume in Adults with Childhood Lead
Exposure”, PLoS Med 2008 5(5): e112.

[13] Gouveia-Vigeant,
Tami and Tickner, Joel,  “Toxic Chemicals
and Childhood Cancer:  a review of the
evidence”, U of Massachusetts, May 2003

[14] http://www.chem-tox.com/beds/frame-beds.htm.  See also “Respiratory Toxicity of mattress
emissions in mice”, Archives of Environmental health, 55 (1): 38-43, 2000.





New sustainable textile standard: NSF/ANSI 336

26 09 2011

Back in 2003, the Association for Contract Textiles (ACT), a trade organization for North American manufacturers of contract textiles consisting of many of the big textile companies (click here for members), identified the need for a universal standard to better serve suppliers, distributors and specifiers.  According to Petie Davis of NSF International, a not-for-profit, non-governmental organization, which provides standards development, product certification, education, and risk-management for public health and safety,   “Architects, designers, and specifiers have been demanding a uniform, transparent sustainability standard that would give them the assurance they need to specify sustainable product.”   The manufacturers saw the writing on the wall, and a cynical person might think they wanted to get a jump start on creating their own set of standards before something else was foisted on them.

In early 2004, the ACT Environmental Committee selected GreenBlue[1] to develop a standard suitable for textiles used in commercial interiors.  That fall, ACT and GreenBlue approached NSF International to provide American National Standards Institute (ANSI)[2]-certified credentials needed to build a standard, which became  NSF/ANSI 336.  They saw this new standard as being applicable on a national level and available as a model to other areas of the textile industry.  The standard was developed using a consensus-based process, which included textile mills, suppliers,  architects and designers, academics, trade associations, representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as well as state agencies and non-governmental organizations.

As you might imagine, it took a long time to hammer out an agreement:   7 years of wrangling and compromise, suggestions and counter-suggestions, before everybody agreed on a standard that they could all live with.  The new NSF/ANSI Standard  336 was officially finalized in April, 2011, and debuted in June, 2011 at NeoCon.

So now it’s supposed to be a lot easier to specify a sustainable fabric.  But is this new standard the one that provides specifiers with the assurance that what they’re buying is indeed a sustainable product?

Environmental Building News (EBN) said that “this new standard represents significant progress for an industry with significant toxicity concerns due to fabric processing and finishes.”[3]  This time we do not agree with EBN, because we think the standard represents a roadblock to progress.

Let’s just consider how the standard deals with toxicity issues, which were highlighted by EBN.   When you do that, you find that the new NSF standard is anemic when compared to existing standards, such as Oeko Tex and GOTS, which
are both stunningly more strict than the new NSF/ANSI 336.  Even though 336 pertains to contract textiles, which are overwhelmingly made of synthetics,  the processing and finishes of these synthetics could follow the same parameters as are in place now with existing standards such as GOTS.   For example, see the limits for metals in dyes and pigments as listed in section 6.4.1 of NSF/ANSI 336 versus Oeko Tex and GOTS:

Metal

NSF/ANSI 336

OEKO TEX

GOTS

Limit for
dyes (ppm)
Limit for
pigments(ppm)

1: Baby in ppm

IV: interiors fabrics : in ppm

Antimony

50

250

30

30

prohibited

Arsenic

50

50

0.2

1

prohibited

Cadmium

20

50

0.1

0.1

prohibited

Chromium

100

100

1

2

prohibited

Lead

100

100

0.2

1

prohibited

Mercury

4

25

0.02

0.02

prohibited

Zinc

1500

1000

not listed

prohibited

Copper

250

unlimited

25

50

prohibited

Nickel

200

unlimited

1

4

prohibited

Tin

250

 unlimited

not listed

prohibited

Barium

100

100

prohibited

Cobalt

500

unlimited

1

4

prohibited

Iron

2500

unlimited

not listed

prohibited

Manganese

1000

unlimited

prohibited

Selenium

20

100

prohibited

Silver

100

unlimited

prohibited

Consider lead –  under the new Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008,  products designated for children must meet 100 ppm lead content by August, 2011.  Does this limit value of 100 ppm really represent progress when studies have shown that exposure to lead in any amount can be hazardous?  Sorry, this time we do not agree with Environmental Building News  – we think this new standard represents an obfuscation of the issues and is a roadblock to progress.

Next week we’ll show you how the standard is set up so as to allow the obfuscation of issues.


[1] GreenBlue is a non-profit institute
that stimulates the creative redesign of industry by focusing the expertise of
professional communities to create practical solutions, resources, and
opportunities for implementing sustainability. GreenBlue is recognized for its
ability to convene stakeholders, establish ambitious objectives, and develop
practical design tools and resources. http://www.greenblue.org

[2] The American National Standards Institute
or ANSI is a private non-profit organization that oversees the development of
voluntary consensus standards for products, services, processes, systems, and
personnel in the United States. The organization also coordinates U.S.
standards with international standards so that American products can be used
worldwide.

ANSI accredits
standards that are developed by representatives of standards developing
organizations, government agencies, consumer groups, companies, and others.
These standards ensure that the characteristics and performance of products are
consistent, that people use the same definitions and terms, and that products
are tested the same way. http://www.ansi.org





Certifications: Oeko Tex

28 07 2011

I have an apology to make:  I made a statement last week that turns out to be incorrect, based on experience from years ago.  I said

“it’s not unusual to find a GOTS certification logo on a product – because it’s hard to get, and those who have it certainly want to display the logo.  But the certification may apply only to the organic fibers – the logo itself is not specific as to what is being certified.”

Laurie Lemmlie-Leung, of Sapphire International, Ltd, which is a GOTS certified terry mill, pointed out that in their experience,  “If we do not have an approved “GOTS Product Specification Plan” and transaction certificates showing that all the inputs are also GOTS certified, then we cannot use the GOTS label on the product.”  And that is indeed the case:  a GOTS logo on any product means that all processing up to the final product is GOTS certified.  So if GOTS certified cotton yarn is being sold, it can display the logo.  However, if that yarn is used to weave a fabric in a non-certified facility, the final fabric cannot display the logo.

So when you see a GOTS logo on a product, you can rest assured that the entire supply chain has been certified.

Now, back to discussion of certifications:  Before giving a summary of the main points of each of the certifications which deal with fiber processing (i.e., weaving), it’s important to remember that most of these certification programs are in business – so it costs money to achieve the certification – sometimes it costs a LOT of money.  In addition there is the burden of documentation, which increases administrative costs for the manufacturer.

Cradle to Cradle and GreenGuard can cost quite a bit, so when you look on the web sites to find which products have these certifications,  you see mostly large, well established companies which can afford to absorb the certification costs.  On the GreenGuard website, for example, it lists 1943 individual products, but all 1943 products are manufactured by only 20 large, well-known companies.  Sometimes smaller manufacturers decide not to pay the costs of certification, even though they may be doing everything “by the book”, because they’re operating on a shoestring.  Unfortunately, the many unethical claims make third party certification a requirement.

In addition to certifications, there are many new “green guides” on the internet which purport to list green products.  Some are valiantly trying to make order out of chaos, while others are simply adding to the confusion.  Of these, a basic listing may (or may not) be free, but any additional bells and whistles costs money.  So green products may be specially featured or identified (sometimes as “best”) because the manufacturer has paid for the spotlight.  The same is true of television shows which purport to cover new green products.  We have been approached several times by television programs featuring a well-known personality who would wax eloquently about our fabrics – if only we were to pay the right price.

What does this all mean?  Do your own homework!  Most of these “experts” have no more knowledge than you do.  And again, certifications provide a reliable yardstick to determine quality standards.

The third party certifications which cover textile processing and/or final products which you’ll see most often include:

  • Oeko Tex
  • GreenGuard
  • Cradle 2 Cradle by MBDC
  • Global Organic Textile Standard
  • Global Recycle Standard
  • SMART Sustainable Textile Standard

These are the certifications you’re most likely to run into, and they are very different.  So different, in fact, that we’ll take a few weeks to explore what each one tells us.

This week, we’ll start with one of the oldest certifications:  Oeko Tex.

Oeko Tex is an independent, third party certifier that offers two certifications for textiles:

  1. Oeko-Tex 100 (for products)
  2. Oeko-Tex 1000 (for production sites/factories).

Products satisfying the criteria for Oeko-Tex 100 which are produced in an Oeko-Tex 1000 certified facility may use the Oeko-Tex 100Plus mark, which is simply a combination of the two.

Oeko Tex was founded in 1992, by the Austrian Textile Research Intitute (OTI) and the German Research Institute Hohenstein,  to provide an objective and reliable product label for consumers.  Its aim is to ensure that products posed no risk to health.

Oeko Tex Standard 100

The Oeko-Tex Standard 100 standard is concerned primarily with health and safety of textile products – it tests only the end product.  The processing is not addressed – for example, wastewater treatment is not included.   It is NOT an organic certification and products bearing this mark are not necessarily made from organically grown fibers. (Note:  When you see the logo, make sure that the test number is quoted (No. 11-20489 in the image above)  and the test institute is named (Shirley is the institute which tested the product).)

Textiles considered for this standard are classified into four categories, and each category has different test values for chemicals allowed in the product:

  • Product Class I: Products for Babies – all textile products and materials used to manufacture such textile products for children up to the age of 36 months (leather clothing is excepted)
  • Product Class II: Products with Direct Contact to Skin – worn articles of which a large surface touches the skin (i.e. underwear, shirts, pants)
  • Product Class III: Products without Direct Contact to Skin – articles of which only a small part of their surface touches the skin (i.e. linings, stuffings)

Textile products bearing the Oeko-Tex 100 certification mark:

  • Do not contain allergenic dye-stuffs and dye stuffs that form carcinogenic arylamines.
  • Have been tested for pesticides and chlorinated phenoles.
  • Have been tested for the release of heavy metals under artificial perspiration conditions.
  • Formaldehyde is banned; other aldehyde limits are significantly lower than the required legal limits.
  • Have a skin friendly pH.
  • Are free from chloro-organic carriers.
  • Are free from biologically active finishes.

The certification process includes thorough testing for a lengthy list of chemicals, including lead, antimony, arsenic, phthalates, pesticides, and chlorinated phenols. The official table of limits for tested chemicals may be found on the Oeko-Tex website.  Specifically banned are:

  • AZO dyes
  • Carcinogenic and allergy-inducing dyes
  • Pesticides
  • Chlorinated phenols
  • Chloro-organic benzenes and toluenes
  • Extractable heavy metals
  • Phthalates in baby articles
  • Organotin compounds(TBT and DBT)
  • Emissions of volatile components

Certification may be given to a finished product (such as a shirt), or to individual components (such as yarn, or fabric).

Oeko-Tex Standard 1000

The Oeko-Tex 1000 is a certification for environmentally-friendly textile production.
The goal of the Oeko-Tex 1000 Standard is to be “an evaluation of the environmental performance of textile production sites and products and to document independently that certain environmental measures are undertaken and a certain level achieved.”

The evaluation process includes considerations for:

  • environmental impact: energy consumption, whether materials used are renewable or non-renewable, and the overall impact of the space utilized
  • global impact: use of fossil fuels, use of ozone-depleting chemicals regional impact: VOC’s, water contamination, acidification of soil and water from fossil fuel use, emissions (often from chlorine bleaching)
  • local effects: emissions, workplace contamination, noise, use of dangerous chemical products

The mark is not applied directly to products, but may be used by the production site (for example, on its letterhead and official documents). The “local effects” consideration does NOT include an evaluation of labor practices and is not meant to be an indicator of whether a production site is following fair labor practices.

Oeko-Tex 100Plus

This label may be used on products that have met the Oeko-Tex 100 Standard and are also produced in a facility that meets the Oeko-Tex 1000 Standard.

So, these are the important points to keep in mind when you see the Oeko Tex logo:

  1. Oeko Tex 100 is product specific – they don’t look at processing (i.e., water treatment, workers rights, emissions, sludge), it only means that the finished product (fabric, yarn, clothing, etc.) has limit values for chemicals which are below the threshold limits on the Oeko Tex list, with many specifically prohibited.
  2. Oeko Tex 1000 is site specific, and documents that certain environmental standards are met, but these do not include workers rights issues.
  3. Oeko Tex 100+ means that the site meets environmental standards and the product itself is safe to use.