Defining luxury

29 04 2014

The most recent issue of Ecotextile News had an article about “sustainable luxury”[1] and it got me thinking.  The article asked the question whether “luxury” and “sustainability” were opposing concepts.   One would think so.

Although luxury and sustainability both focus on rarity and beauty,  both have durability at the heart of the concept.  Just look at Louis Vuitton, which provides after sale service to any genuine product of theirs, wherever it was bought.   A product  seen as “luxurious” is one of lasting worth and timeless design, which is at the opposite end of the spectrum of the fashion and mass market industry where obsolescence is locked into a product at the design stage.

But I think the concept of luxury has an added dimension today – it is more about your state of mind than the size of your wallet. These days, people define luxury by such things as a long lunch with old friends,  the good health to run a 5K, or waking up in the morning and doing exactly what you want all day long.

In the past luxury was often about things.  Today, we think it’s not so much about having as it is about being knowledgeable about what you’re buying – knowing that you’re buying the best and that it’s also good for the world.  It’s also about responsibility: it just doesn’t feel OK to buy unnecessary things when people are starving and the world is becoming overheated.  It’s about products being defined by how they make you feel –  “conscious consumption” – and giving you ways to find personal meaning and satisfaction.

Luxury today is more about the one perfectly plain organic lettuce salad from the farmers market near your home than a rich meal made of food from the other side of the globe. It’s about craftsmanship, art, intimacy, and service.

We want to eliminate the guilt of our throwaway culture. Things we buy should be produced in ways that, at the very least, do no harm, and that either biodegrade or are infinitely recyclable – or they should exhibit the timeless aesthetics and natural qualities that make them heirlooms to be passed down to future generations. This is exactly what we at O Ecotextiles have committed ourselves to providing.

Our designs are classic and therefore timeless, and our choice of natural fabrics respects a time-honored tradition.

By protecting our planet, and the flora and fauna it supports, we are assured of being able to live with linen sheets, silk velvet upholstery and pure hemp draperies – forever.  The fibers are eternal; how we choose to weave and color them varies by designer and is part of the colorful history of design.

We want to make sure the fibers endure.

 Once you start tinkering with the ecosystem it’s not possible to concentrate on one static facet, since we live in an interconnected and self-organizing universe of changing patterns and flowing energy. Everything has an intrinsic pattern which in turn is part of a greater pattern and all of it is in flux. To bring a sense of order out of this chaotic concept, let’s concentrate on water:

Water was not included in the 1947 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights because at the time it wasn’t perceived as having a human rights dimension. Yet today, water is becoming controlled by corporate interests, and what is known as the global water justice movement is working hard to ensure the right to water as a basic human right.[2] Our global supply of fresh water is diminishing – 2/3 of the world’s population is projected to face water scarcity by 2025, according to the UN.

With no controls in place to speak of to date, there are now 405 dead zones in our oceans.  Drinking water even in industrialized countries, with treatment in place, nevertheless yields a list of toxins when tested – many of them with no toxicological roadmap.

The textile industry is the #1 industrial polluter of fresh water on the planet. Now that virtual or “embedded” water tracking is becoming necessary in evaluating products, people are beginning to understand the concept when we say it takes 500 gallons of water to make the fabric to cover one sofa.  We want people to become aware that when they buy anything, and fabric especially, they reinforce the manufacturing processes used to produce it.

This is a complex subject and trying to map and analyze it often produces inconsistent and unreliable data. The only sure thing we know is that we have to change – the faster the better.

 We want our customers to depend on us to sell fabrics that do no harm… to them, their families or our world. Our company was founded on that bedrock – each and every fabric has met these standards.

Concurrently, we committed to showing our warts too – it’s complicated and difficult to follow these standards, so we would tell customers if and when we failed at any point and why. We want to empower consumers by providing as much information as they want to absorb.

Given a cursory glance, our fabrics may look like many others on the market. But like Antoine de Saint Exupery said in The Little Prince, “What is essential is often invisible to the eye”. One of our sales reps tells her clients to smell the fabrics! There is no synthetic smell – in fact some smell like new mown hay.  So although you can find other fabrics that may look like ours, when you buy  25 yards of fabric  from O Ecotextiles you’re also buying, at the very least, better health:   your body will not have had to deal with the many chemicals used in processing (which remain in the fabric) – chemicals which have been proven to cause harm (remember Erin Brokovich?).  If you choose a GOTS certified fabric, you also get:

  • Clean air and water:  approximately 500 gallons of chemically-infused effluent was prevented from entering your ecosystem and the troublesome chemicals which evaporate into the air in your homes and offices is eliminated ;
  • A better environment:  soils used to grow the fibers have been renewed rather than depleted, and in the growing of the fibers you’ve conserved water, mitigated climate change and ensured biodiversity.

And – most importantly –  you’re using your purchasing power to put these changes into place!

 

[1] Ravasio, Dr. Pamela, “Sustainable luxury: impossible paradox, or inherent synergy?”, Ecotextile News, February/March 2014

[2] Barlow, Maude, Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the coming Battle for the Right to Water, October 2007





What will nanotechnology mean to you?

2 04 2014

A hot topic in the media right now is the toxicity of chemical flame retardants that are in our furniture and are migrating out into our environment.  Tests have shown that Americans carry much higher levels of these chemicals in their bodies than anyone else in the world, with children in California containing some of the highest levels ever tested.   According to Ronald Hites of Indiana University, these concentrations have been “exponentially increasing, with a doubling time of 4 to 5 years.”[1]  These toxic chemicals are present in nearly every home – packed into couches, chairs and many baby products including (but not limited to) mattresses, nursing pillows, carriers and changing table pads (scary!).  Recent studies have found that most couches in America have over 1 pound of the toxic chemical Chlorinated Tris inside them[2], even though it was banned in children’s pajamas over cancer concerns over a generation ago.[3]

Why the concern?  Fire retardant chemicals, called PBDE’s (polybrominated diphenyl ethers) have been linked to cancer, reproductive problems and impaired fetal brain development, as well as decreased fertility.  And even though they’ve been banned in the U.S. and European Union, they persist in the environment and accumulate in your body – and they’re still being used today.

So its probably no surprise that there is a mad scramble on to produce a fire retardant that does not impact our health or the environment.   The current front runners, touted as being “exceptionally” effective yet safer and more environmentally friendly than the current fire retardants, use nanotechnology – specifically “nanocoatings” and “nanocomposites”[4] .  These composites and coatings are based on what are called “multiwalled carbon nanotubes” or MWCNTs.

Based on a final report published by the U.S. EPA in September 2013 about the assessment of the risks of using these  MWCNTs, the EPA found that there will be releases of these MWCNTs into the environment throughout the life cycle of textiles – to our air and water during production,  in the form of abraded particles of the textiles falling into the dust in our homes, and in the disposal of furniture in municipal landfills or incineration facilities.[5]

While it is reasonable to propose that substituting nanomaterials for polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDEs)  or chlorinated triss  and calling it “sustainable”, the fact is that no quantitative study has ever been done to support this assertion . [6]

Please don’t misunderstand me – I am all for finding safer alternatives to the current crop of chemical fire retardants (assuming I buy into the argument that we actually need them).  However, I don’t want us to jump from the frying pan into the fire by rushing to use a technology which is still controversial.  But the race is on:  the US patent office published some 4000 patents under “977 – nanotechnology” in 2012, a new record.

patents nanotech

Here’s an interesting video which helps to explain how nano works – and why we will need extensive study to absorb the many implications of this emerging science.

Consider these science fiction type scenarios of how nano can be used to profoundly change our lives:

  • “nanomedicine” offers the promise of diagnosis and treatment of a disease – before you even have the symptoms.  Or it promises to rebuild neurons for people with Alzheimers or Parkinson’s disease – and stem cells for whatever ails you!   Bone regeneration.  [7]
  • Surfaces can be modified to be scratchproof, unwettable, clean or sterile, depending on the application.[8]
  • Quantum computing.
  • Solar cells capturing the sun’s visible spectrum – as well as infrared photons –  doubling the solar energy available to us.  How about zero net carbon emissions.
  • Nanoscale bits of metals can detoxify hazardous wastes.
  • Clothing that recharges your cell phone as you stroll, or an implant that measures blood pressure powered by your own heartbeat.

And yet.  The unknowns are great, and as Eric Drexler has said, the story involves a tangle of science and fiction linked with money, press coverage, Washington politics and sheer confusion.  Scientists and governments agree that the application of nanotechnology to commerce poses important potential risks to human health and the environment, and those risks are unknown. Examples of high level respected reports that express this concern include:

  • Swiss Federation (Precautionary Matrix 2008)[9]
  • Commission on Environmental Pollution (UK 2008)[10];
  • German Governmental Science Commission (“SRU”)[11];
  • Public testimony sought by USA National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH, Feb 2011)[12] ;
  • OECD working group (since 2007)[13];
  • World Trade Organization (WTO)[14]
  • as well as several industrial groups and various non-governmental organizations.

Nanotechnology is already transforming many products – water treatment, pesticides, food packaging and cosmetics to name a few – so the cat is already out of the bag.  Consider this small example of the nano particle  argument:  When ingested the nanoparticles pass into the blood and lymph system, circulate throughout the body and reach potentially sensitive sites such as the spleen, brain, liver and heart.[15]   The ability of nanoparticles to cross the blood brain barrier makes them extremely useful as a way to deliver drugs directly to the brain.  On the other hand, these nanoparticles may be toxic to the brain.  We simply don’t know enough about the size and surface charge of nanoparticles to draw conclusions.[16]  In textiles, silver nano particles are used as antibacterial/antifungal agents to prevent odors.

But there are almost no publications on the effects of engineered nanoparticles on animals and plants in the environment.

So it’s still not clear what nanoscience will grow up to be – if it doesn’t kill us, it might just save us.


[2] Stapleton HM, et al. Detection of organophosphate flame retardants in furniture foam and U.S. house dust. Environ Sci Technol 43(19):7490–7495. (2009); http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es9014019.

[3] Callahan, P and Hawthorne, M; “Chemicals in the Crib”, Chicago Tribune, December 28, 2012, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-28/news/ct-met-flames-test-mattress-20121228_1_tdcpp-heather-stapleton-chlorinated-tris

[5] Comprehensive Environmental Assessment Applied to Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube Flame-Retardant Coatings in Upholstery Textiles: A Case Study Presenting Priority Research Gaps for Future Risk Assessments (Final Report), Environmental Protection Agency, http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/nano/recordisplay.cfm?deid=253010

[6] Gilman,  Jeffrey W., “Sustainable Flame Retardant Nanocomposites”; National Institute of Standards and Technology

[7] Hunziker, Patrick,  “Nanomedicine: The Use of Nano-Scale Science for the Benefit of the Patient” European Foundation for Clinical Nanomedicine (CLINAM) Basel, Switzerland 2010.

[9] Swiss National Science Foundation, Opportunities and Risks of Nanomaterials Implementation Plan of the National Research Programme NRP 64 Berne, 6 October 2009; see also Swiss Precautionary Matrix, and documents explaining and justifying its use, available in English from the Federal Office of Public Health.

[10] Chairman: Sir John Lawton CBE, FRS Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Twenty-seventh report: Novel Materials in the Environment: The case of nanotechnology. Presented to Parliament by Command of Her Majesty November 2008.

[11] SRU, German Advisory Council on Environment, Special Report “Precautionary strategies for managing nanomaterials” Sept 2011. The German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU) is empowered by the German government to make “recommendations for a responsible and precautionary development of this new technology”.

[12] See: Legal basis and justification: Niosh recommendations preventing risk from carbon nanotubes and nanofibers ”post-hearing comments Niosh current intelligence bulletin: occupational exposure to carbon nanotubes and nanofibers Docket NO. NIOSH-161 Revised 18 February 2011; Testimony on behalf of ISRA (International Safety Resources Association) Before NIOSH, USA. Comments prepared by Ilise L Feitshans JD and ScM, Geneva, Switzerland. Testimony presented by Jay Feitshans, Science Policy Analyst; ISRA Draft Document for Public Review and Comment NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin: Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers, Docket Number NIOSH-161-A.

[13] The OECD Working Party for Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) “OECD Emission Assessment for Identification of Sources of release of Airborne Manufactured Nanomaterials in the Workplace: Compilation of Existing Guidance”, ENV/JM/MONO (2009)16, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/60/43289645.pdf. “OECD Preliminary Analysis of Exposure Measurement and Exposure Mitigation in Occupational Settings: Manufactured Nanomaterials” OECD ENV/JM/MONO(2009)6, 2009. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/36/36/42594202.pdf.
“OECD Comparison of Guidance on selection of skin protective equipment and respirators for use in the workplace: manufactured nanomaterials”, OECD ENV/JM/MONO(2009) 17, 2009. www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/56/43289781.pdf.

[14] WHO Guidelines on “Protecting Workers from Potential Risks of Manufactured Nanomaterials” (WHO/NANOH), (Background paper) 2011

[15] Dixon, D., “Toxic nanoparticles might be entering human food supply, MU study finds”, August 22, 2013, http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2013/0822-toxic-nanoparticles-might-be-entering-human-food-supply-mu-study-finds/

[16] Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified health Risks (SCENIHR), The European Commission, 2006

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/health/2013/01/25/sgmd-gupta-flame-retardants.cnn.html

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/health/2013/01/25/sgmd-gupta-flame-retardants.cnn.html





Textile chemicals – beginning with the one used the most

16 01 2013

saltLet’s begin our review of chemicals used in textile processing with the one chemical that is used most often and in far greater quantity than any other: salt. That’s right. Common table salt, the kind you probably use every day. But in the quantities used by this industry it becomes a monster – we’ll get to that in a minute.

Salt is used in the dye process. The way the dyestuff bonds to the fibers is very important – and the most permanent, colorfast dyes are the ones that are most tightly attached to the fiber molecules (called reactive dyes). Here’s how salt comes into the picture:

When fabrics made of cellulosic (i.e., cotton, linen, hemp or viscose) are dyed, they’re immersed in water which contains dyes which have been dissolved in the water. The surface of the fabric gets covered in negative ionic charges. The reactive dyes used most often to dye cellulosic fabrics also develop a negative charge, so the fibers actually repel the dye – like two magnets repelling each other. If we try to dye a cellulosic fabric without using salt, the dye molecules just roll off the surface of the fibers and the fabric does not show much color change. So these reactive dyes need the addition of salt to “push” the dyes out of solution and into the cloth by neutralizing the negative charge.

The salt acts like a glue to hold the dye molecules in place, and with the addition of alkali, a certain percentage of the dyestuff (called the “fixation rate”) will permanently grab hold of the fiber and become a part of the fiber molecule rather than remaining as an independent chemical entity. For conventional reactive dyes, the fixation rate is often less than 80%, resulting in waste of dyestuff, and also the need to remove that 20% (which is not fixed) from the fabric.(1) But this is incredibly difficult when the “unreacted” dyes are still “glued” onto the fabric by salt. So vast amounts of water are required to simply dilute the salt concentrations to a point where it no longer acts as glue.

That means the textile effluent contains both dyestuff and salt (lots of salt!) The concentrations of salt in the dye bath can be as high as 100 gm per liter. In the worst cases, equal weights of salt to fabric is used to apply reactive dye (i.e., if dyeing 10 lbs of fabric, you need 10 lbs of salt). Think of the billions of yards of fabric that’s produced each year: In Europe alone, 1 million tons of salt is discharged into waterways each year.(2) In areas where salt is discharged into the ecosystem, it takes a long, long time for affected areas to recover, especially in areas of sparse rainfall – such as Tirupur, India.

Tirupur is one of the world’s centers for clothing production , home of 765 dyeing and bleaching industries. These dyehouses had been dumping untreated effluent into the Noyyal River for years, rendering the water unsuitable or irrigation – or drinking. In 2005, the government shut down 571 dyehouses because of the effluent being discharged into the Noyyal. The mill owners said they simply couldn’t afford to put pollution measures into place. The industry is too important to India to keep the mills closed for long, so the government banned the discharge of salt and asked for an advance from the mills before allowing them to re-open. But … on February 4, 2011, the Madras high court ordered 700 dye plants to be shut down because of the damage the effluent was doing to the local environment. Sigh. (Read more about Tirupur here.)

Unfortunately, the salt in textile effluent is not made harmless by treatment plants and can pass straight through to our rivers even if it has been treated. The salt expelled into waterways (untreated) coupled with salt from roadway de-icing has led to the increase in salt in our waters in the United States – salt levels in Lake George have nearly tripled since 1980,(3) which mirrors many other parts of the U.S. Highest levels occur during the annual ice-out and snowmelt where high salt concentrations in streams flowing into Lake George have been linked to die offs of fish, and is known as “spring shock”. A study in Toronto found that half the wells tested exceeded the limit of 20mg of salt per liter of water, 20% exceeded 100mg/liter and 6% exceeded 250mg/liter. (4) It becomes a public health concern for people who drink this water, because it can exacerbate high blood pressure and hypertension in humans. This increase in our drinking water can also cause problems with water balance in the human body. Salt in water is also responsible for the release of mercury into the water system.

Recycling the salt used during the dye process is possible, and this has been used by many of the dyers in Tirupur, and elsewhere, who operate zero discharge facilities. The effluent is cleaned and then the salt is recovered using an energy intensive process to evaporate the water and leave the solid, re-useable salt. This sounds like a good idea – it reduces the pollution levels – but the carbon footprint goes through the roof, so salt recovery isn’t necessarily the best option. In fact, in some areas of the world where water is plentiful and the salt can be diluted in the rivers adequately, it may be better to simply discharge salt than to recover it.

There are some new “low salt” dyes that require only half the amount of “glue”: Ciba Specialty Chemicals, a Swiss manufacturer of textile dyes (now part of BASF) produces a dyestuff which requires less salt. As the company brochure puts it: “Textile companies using the new dyes are able to reduce their costs for salt by up to 2 percent of revenues, a significant drop in an industry with razor-thin profit margins” but these dyes are not widely used because they’re expensive – and manufacturers are following our lead in demanding ever cheaper costs. There are also new low-liquor-ratio (LLR) jet dyeing machines – but that doesn’t mean zero salt, so there is still salt infused effluent which must be treated. And these new ultra low liquor ratio machines are very expensive.

The best option is to avoid salt altogether. Though the salt itself is not expensive, using less salt delivers substantial benefits to the mill because the fabric requires less rinsing in hot water (and hence reductions in energy and water) as well as cost savings of up to 10% of the total process costs.(5) So what about using no salt at all?

There are two ways to dye fabrics without salt: “continuous dyeing” and “cold pad batch dyeing”. Continuous dyeing means that the dye is applied with alkali to activate the dye fixation; the fabric is then steamed for a few minutes to completely fix the dyestuff. Cold pad batch dyeing applies the dyestuff with alkali and the fabric is simply left at room temperature for 24 hours to fix the dye.

Both of these methods don’t use salt, so the unfixed dye chemicals are easier to remove because there is no salt acting as the “glue” – and therefore less water is used. An additional benefit is having a lower salt content in the effluent. So why don’t companies use this method? Continuous dyeing requires investment in big, expensive machines that only make environmental sense if they can be filled with large orders – because they use lots of energy even during downtime.

Cold pad batch machines are relatively inexpensive to buy and run, they are highly productive and can be used for a wide range of fabrics. Yet only 3% of knitted cotton fabric is dyed in Asia using cold pad batch machines.
Why on earth don’t these mills use cold pad batch dyeing? I would love to hear from any mill owners who might let us know more about the economics of dyeing operations.

(1) http://lifestylemonitor.cottoninc.com/Supply-Chain-Insights/Sustainable-Dyeing-Solutions-02-10/
(2) Dyeing for a change: Current Conventions and New Futures in the Textile Color Industry (2006, July) http://www.betterthinking.co.uk
(3) http://www.fundforlakegeorge.org/assets/pdf_files/Fact%20Sheet%2011%20Salt.pdf
(4) http://www.digitaltermpapers.com/a2206.htm
(5) “A Practical Guide For Responsible Sourcing”, The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), February 2010.





Is it sustainable just because we’re told it is?

22 09 2010

I just tried to find out more about Project UDesign,   a competition sponsored by the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD), Cargill, Toray Industries and Century Furniture.  The goal is to produce a chair that is both “sustainable and sellable.”  It is targeted to be the next “ eco friendly wing chair” on the market, with the goal of educating the industry and consumers on the topic of sustainable furniture design.[1] Century Furniture has pledged to put the winning chair into production.

Since criteria for the chair design is limited to the use of Cargill’s BiOH® polyols soy foam and Toray’s EcoDesign™ Ultrasuede® upholstery fabric we would like to help Project UDesign reach their goal of educating us on sustainable furniture design by explaining why we think these two products cannot be considered a sustainable choice .  In fact, by sponsoring this competition and limiting the student’s choices to Cargill’s BiOH® polyols (“soy”)  foams and Toray’s EcoDesign™ Ultrasuede® fabrics, it sends absolutely the wrong message to the students and the public about what constitutes an “eco friendly” choice.

So, let’s take a look at these two products to find out why I’m in such a dither:

Beginning with soy foam:   the claim that soy foam is a green product is based on two claims:

  1. that it’s made from soybeans, a renewable resource
  2. that it reduces our dependence on fossil fuels  by  both reducing the amount of fossil fuel needed for the feedstock  and  by reducing the energy requirements needed to produce the foam.

Are these viable claims?

It’s made from soybeans, a renewable resource:  This claim is undeniably true.   But what they don’t tell you is that this product, marketed as soy or bio-based, contains very little soy. In fact, it is more accurate to call it ‘polyurethane based foam with a touch of soy added for marketing purposes’. For example, a product marketed as “20% soy based” may sound impressive, but what this typically means is that soy accounts for  only 10% of the foam’s total volume. Why?  Given that polyurethane foam is made by combining two main ingredients—a polyol and an isocyanate—in 40/60 ratios (40% is the high end for BiOH® polyols used, it can be as low as 5%), “20% soy based” translates to 20% of the polyol portion, or 20% of the 40% of polyols used to make the foam. In this example the product remains 90% polyurethane foam  ‘based’ on fossil fuels, 10% ‘based’ on soy. If you go to Starbucks and buy a 20 oz coffee and add 2-3 soy milk/creamers to it, does it become “soy-based” coffee?

It reduces our dependence on fossil fuels: This means that while suppliers may claim that ‘bio foams’ are based on renewable materials such as soy, in reality a whopping 90 to 95%, and sometimes more of the product consists of the same old petro-chemical based brew of toxic chemicals. This is no ‘leap forward in foam technology’.  In the graphic below, “B-Component” represents the polyol portion of polyurethane, and the “A-Component” represents the isocyanate portion of the polyurethane:

It is true that the energy needed to produce soy-based foam is, according to Cargill, who manufactures the soy polyol,  less that that needed to produce the polyurethane foam.   But because the soy based polyols represent only about 10% of the final foam product, the true energy reduction is only about 4.6% rather than 23%, which is what Cargill leads you to believe in their LCA, which can be read here.   But hey, that’s still a savings and every little bit helps get us closer to a self sustaining economy and is friendlier to the planet, so this couldn’t be what is fueling my outrage.

The real problem with advertising soy based foam as a new, miracle green product is that the foam, whether soy based or not, remains a   ” greenhouse gas-spewing petroleum product and a witches brew of carcinogenic and neurotoxic chemicals”, according to Len Laycock of Upholstery Arts.

My concern with the use of soy is not its carbon footprint but rather the introduction of a whole new universe of concerns such as pesticide use, genetically modifed crops (GMO), appropriation of food stocks and deforestation.  Most soy crops are now GMO:  according to the USDA, over 91% of all soy crops in the US are now GMO; in 2007, 58.6% of all soybeans worldwide were GMO.  If you don’t think that’s a big deal, please read our posts on these issues (9.23.09 and 9.29.09).  The debate still rages today.  Greenpeace did an expose (“Eating Up The Amazon” ) on what they consider to be a driving force behind  Amazon rain forest destruction – Cargill’s race to establish soy plantations in Brazil.  You can read the Greenpeace report here, and Cargill’s rejoinder here.

An interesting aside:  There is an article featured on CNNMoney.com about the rise of what they call Soylandia – the enormous swath of soy producing lands in Brazil (almost unknown to Americans) which dominates the global soy trade.  Sure opened my eyes to some associated soy issues.

In “Killing You Softly” (a white paper by Upholstery Arts),  another sinister side of  soy based foam marketing is brought to light:

“Pretending to offer ‘soy based’ foam allows these corporations to cloak themselves in a green blanket and masquerade as environmentally responsible corporations when in practice they are not. By highlighting small petroleum savings, they conveniently distract the public from the fact that this product’s manufacture and use continues to threaten human health and poses serious disposal problems. Aside from replacing a small portion of petroleum polyols, the production of polyurethane based foams with soy added continues to rely heavily on ‘the workhorse of the polyurethane foam industry’, cancer-causing toluene diisocyanate (TDI). So it remains ‘business as usual’ for polyurethane manufacturers.

Despite what polyurethane foam and furniture companies imply , soy foam is not biodegradable either. Buried in the footnotes on their website, Cargill quietly acknowledges that, “foams made with BiOH® polyols are not more biodegradable than traditional petroleum-based cushioning”.[2] Those ever so carefully phrased words are an admission that all polyurethane foams, with or without soy added, simply cannot biodegrade. And so they will languish in our garbage dumps, leach into our water, and find their way into the soft tissue of young children, contaminating and compromising life long after their intended use.

The current marketing of polyurethane foam and furniture made with ‘soy foam’ is merely a page out the tobacco industry’s current ‘greenwashing’ play book. Like a subliminal message, the polyurethane foam and furniture industries are using the soothing words and images of the environmental movement to distract people from the known negative health and environmental impacts of polyurethane foam manufacture, use and disposal.

Cigarettes that are organic (pesticide-free), completely biodegradable, and manufactured using renewable tobacco, still cause cancer and countless deaths. Polyurethane foam made with small amounts of soy-derived materials still exposes human beings to toxic, carcinogenic materials, still relies on oil production, and still poisons life.

As Len Laycock says, “While bio-based technologies may offer promise for creating greener, cradle-to-cradle materials, tonight the only people sitting pretty or sleeping well on polyurethane foam that contains soy are the senior executives and shareholders of the companies benefiting from its sale.  As for the rest of humankind and all the living things over which we have stewardship, we’ve been soy scammed!”

If you’re still with us, lets turn our attention to Toray’s Ultrasuede, and their green claims.

Toray’s green claim for Ultrasuede is that it is based on new and innovative recycling technology, using their postindustrial polyester scraps, which cuts both energy consumption and CO2 emissions by an average of 80% over the creation of virgin polyesters.

If that is the only advance in terms of environmental stewardship, it falls far short of being considered an enlightened choice, as I’ll list below.

If we  look at the two claims made by the company:

  1. Re: energy reduction:  If we take Toray’s claim that it takes just 25 MJ of energy[3] to produce 1 KG of Ultrasuede – that’s still far more energy than is needed to produce 1 KG of organic hemp or linen (10 MJ), or cotton (12 MJ) – with none of the benefits provided by organic agriculture.
  2. CO2 emissions are just one of the emissions issues – in addition to CO2, polyester production generates particulates, N2O, hydrocarbons, sulphur oxides and carbon monoxide, acetaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane (also potentially carcinogenic).

But in addition to these claims, the manufacture of this product creates many concerns which the company does not address, such as:

  1. Polyurethane, a component of Ultrasuede®, is the most toxic plastic known next to PVC; its manufacture creates numerous hazardous by-products, including phosgene (used as a lethal gas during WWII), isosyanates (known carcinogens), toluene (teratogenic and embryotoxic) and ozone depleting gases methylene chloride and CFC’s.
  2. Most polyester is produced using antimony as a catalyst.  Antimony is a carcinogen, and toxic to the heart, lungs, liver and skin.  Long term inhalation causes chronic bronchitis and emphysema.  So, recycled  – or not –  the antimony is still present.
  3. Ethylene glycol (EG) is a raw material used in the production of polyester.  In the United States alone, an estimated 1 billion lbs. of spent ethylene glycol is generated each year.  The EG distillation process creates 40 million pounds of still bottom sludge. When incinerated, the sludge produces 800,000 lbs of fly ash containing antimony, arsenic and other metals.[4] What does Toray do with its EG sludge?
  4. The major water-borne emissions from polyester production include dissolved solids, acids, iron and ammonia.  Does Toray treat its water before release?
  5. And remember, Ultrasuede®  is still  . . .plastic.  Burgeoning evidence about the disastrous consequences of using plastic in our environment continues to mount.  A new compilation of peer reviewed articles, representing over 60 scientists from around the world, aims to assess the impact of plastics on the environment and human health [5]and they found:
    1. Chemicals added to plastics are absorbed by human bodies.   Some of these compounds have been found to alter hormones or have other potential human health effects.
    2. Synthetics do not decompose:  in landfills they release heavy metals, including antimony, and other additives into soil and groundwater.  If they are burned for energy, the chemicals are released into the air.
  6. Nor does it take into consideration our alternative choices:  that using an organic fiber supports organic agriculture, which may be one of our most underestimated tools in the fight against climate change, because it:
      1. Acts as a carbon sink:   new research has shown that what is IN the soil itself (microbes and other soil organisms in healthy soil) is more important in sequestering carbon that what grows ON the soil.  And compared to forests, agricultural soils may be a more secure sink for atmospheric carbon, since they are not vulnerable to logging and wildfire. The Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial (FST) soil carbon data (which covers 30 years)  demonstrates that improved global terrestrial stewardship–specifically including regenerative organic agricultural practices–can be the most effective currently available strategy for mitigating CO2 emissions. [6]
      2. eliminates the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) which is  an improvement in human health and agrobiodiversity
      3. conserves water (making the soil more friable so rainwater is absorbed better – lessening irrigation requirements and erosion)
      4. ensures sustained biodiversity

Claiming that the reclamation and use of their own internally generated scrap is an action to be applauded may be a bit disingenuous.   It is simply the company doing what most companies should do as efficient operations:  cut costs by re-using their own scrap. They are creating a market for their otherwise unsaleable scrap polyester from other operations such as the production of polyester film.  This is a good step by Toray, but to anoint it as the most sustainable choice or even as a true sustainable choice at all is disingenuous. Indeed we have pointed in prior blog posts that there are many who see giving “recycled polyester” a veneer of environmentalism by calling it a green option is one of the reasons plastic use has soared:  plastic use has increased by a factor of 30 since the 1960s while recycling plastic has only increased by a factor of 2. [7]

We cannot condone the use of this synthetic, made from an inherently non-renewable resource, as a green choice for the many reasons given above.

[1] Cargill press release, July 20, 2010  http://www.cargill.com/news-center/news-releases/2010/NA3031350.jsp

[2] http://www.bioh.com/bioh_faqs.html

[3] If we take the average energy needed to produce 1 KG of virgin polyester, 125 MJ (data from “Ecological Footprint and Water Analysis of Cotton, Hemp and Polyester”, by Cherrett et al, Stockholm Enviornemnt Institute) , and reduce it by 80% (Toray’s claim), that means it takes 25 MJ to produce 1 KG of Ultrasuede®

[4] Sustainable Textile Development at Victor,  http://www.victor-innovatex.com/doc/sustainability.pdf

[5] “Plastics, the environment and human health”, Thompson, et al, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences, July 27, 2009

[6] http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/Rodale_Research_Paper-07_30_08.pdf

[7] http://www.edf.org/documents/1889_SomethingtoHide.pdf and http://discovermagazine.com/2009/oct/21-numbers-plastics-manufacturing-recycling-death-landfill





Is Ultrasuede® a “green” fabric?

8 09 2010

In 1970, Toray Industries colleagues Dr. Toyohiko Hikota and Dr. Miyoshi Okamoto created the world’s first micro fiber as well as the process to combine those fibers with a polyurethane foam into a non-woven structure – which the company trademarked as Ultrasuede®.

In April 2009,  Toray announced “a new  environmentally responsible line of products which are based on innovative recycling technology”, called EcoDesign™.    An EcoDesign™ product, according to the company press release, “captures industrial materials, such as scrap polyester films, from the Toray manufacturing processes and recycles them for use in building high-quality fibers and textiles.”

One of the first EcoDesign™ products to be introduced by Toray is a variety of their Ultrasuede®  fabrics.

So I thought we’d take a look at Ultrasuede® to see what we thought of their green claims.

The overriding reason Toray’s EcoDesign™ products are supposed to be environmentally “friendly” is because recycling postindustrial polyesters reduces both energy consumption and CO2 emissions by an average of 80% over the creation of virgin polyesters, according to Des McLaughlin, executive director of Toray Ultrasuede (America).   (Conventional recycling of polyesters generally state energy savings of between 33% – 53%.)

If that is the only advance in terms of environmental stewardship, we feel it falls far short of being considered an enlightened choice.  If we just look at the two claims made by the company:

  1. Re: energy reduction:  If we take the average energy needed to produce 1 KG of virgin polyester, 125 MJ[1], and reduce it by 80% (Toray’s claim), that means it takes 25 MJ to produce 1 KG of Ultrasuede® –  still far more energy than is needed to produce 1 KG of organic hemp (2 MJ), linen (10 MJ), or cotton (12 MJ).
  2. CO2 emissions are just one of the emissions issues – in addition to CO2, polyester production generates particulates, N2O, hydrocarbons, sulphur oxides and carbon monoxide,[2] acetaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane (also potentially carcinogenic).[3]

But in addition to these claims, the manufacture of this product creates many concerns which the company does not address, such as:

  1. Polyurethane, a component of Ultrasuede®, is the most toxic plastic known next to PVC; its manufacture creates numerous hazardous by-products, including phosgene (used as a lethal gas during WWII), isosyanates (known carcinogens), toluene (teratogenic and embryotoxic) and ozone depleting gases methylene chloride and CFC’s.
  2. Most polyester is produced using antimony as a catalyst.  Antimony is a carcinogen, and toxic to the heart, lungs, liver and skin.  Long term inhalation causes chronic bronchitis and emphysema.  So, recycled  – or not –  the antimony is still present.
  3. Ethylene glycol (EG) is a raw material used in the production of polyester.  In the United States alone, an estimated 1 billion lbs. of spent ethylene glycol is generated each year.  The EG distillation process creates 40 million pounds of still bottom sludge. When incinerated, the sludge produces 800,000 lbs of fly ash containing antimony, arsenic and other metals.[4] What does Toray do with it’s EG sludge?
  4. The major water-borne emissions from polyester production include dissolved solids, acids, iron and ammonia.  Does Toray treat its water before release?
  5. And remember, Ultrasuede®  is still  . . .plastic.  Burgeoning evidence about the disastrous consequences of using plastic in our environment continues to mount.  A new compilation of peer reviewed articles, representing over 60 scientists from around the world, aims to assess the impact of plastics on the environment and human health [5]and they found:
    1. Chemicals added to plastics are absorbed by human bodies.   Some of these compounds have been found to alter hormones or have other potential human health effects.
    2. Synthetics do not decompose:  in landfills they release heavy metals, including antimony, and other additives into soil and groundwater.  If they are burned for energy, the chemicals are released into the air.
  1. Nor does it take into consideration our alternative choices:  that using an organic fiber supports organic agriculture, which may be one of our most underestimated tools in the fight against climate change, because it:
    1. Acts as a carbon sink:   new research has shown that what is IN the soil itself (microbes and other soil organisms in healthy soil) is more important in sequestering carbon that what grows ON the soil.  And compared to forests, agricultural soils may be a more secure sink for atmospheric carbon, since they are not vulnerable to logging and wildfire. The Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial (FST) soil carbon data (which covers 30 years)  demonstrates that improved global terrestrial stewardship–specifically including regenerative organic agricultural practices–can be the most effective currently available strategy for mitigating CO2 emissions. [6]
    2. eliminates the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) which is  an improvement in human health and agrobiodiversity
    3. conserves water (making the soil more friable so rainwater is absorbed better – lessening irrigation requirements and erosion)
    4. ensures sustained biodiversity

Claiming that the reclamation and use of their own internally generated scrap is an action to be applauded may be a bit disingenuous.   It is simply the company doing what most companies should do as efficient operations:  cut costs by re-using their own scrap. They are creating a market for their otherwise un-useable scrap polyester from other operations such as the production of polyester film.  This is a good step by Toray, but to anoint it as the most sustainable choice or even as a true sustainable choice at all is  premature. Indeed we have pointed in prior blog posts that there are many who see giving “recycled polyester” a veneer of environmentalism by calling it a green option is one of the reasons plastic use has soared:     indeed plastic use has increased by a factor of 30 since the 1960s while recycling plastic has only increased by a factor of 2. [7] We cannot condone the use of this synthetic, made from an inherently non-renewable resource, as a green choice for the many reasons given above.

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again:  The trend to eco consciousness in textiles represents major progress in reclaiming our stewardship of the earth, and in preventing preventable human misery.  You have the power to stem the toxic stream caused by the production of fabric. If you search for and buy an eco-textile, you are encouraging a shift to production methods that have the currently achievable minimum detrimental effects for either the planet or for your health. You, as a consumer, are very powerful. You have the power to change harmful production practices. Eco textiles do exist and they give you a greener, healthier, fair-trade alternative.

What will an eco-textile do for you? You and the frogs and the world’s flora and fauna could live longer, and be healthier – and in a more just, sufficiently diversified, more beautiful world.


[1]“Ecological Footprint and Water Analysis of Cotton, Hemp and Polyester”, by Cherrett et al, Stockholm Enviornemnt Institute

[2] “Ecological Footprint and Water Analysis of Cotton, Hemp and Polyester”, by Cherrett et al, Stockholm Environment Institute

[3] Gruttner, Henrik, Handbook of Sustainable Textile Purchasing, EcoForum, Denmark, August 2006.

[4] Sustainable Textile Development at Victor,  http://www.victor-innovatex.com/doc/sustainability.pdf

[5] “Plastics, the environment and human health”, Thompson, et al, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences, July 27, 2009

[6] http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/Rodale_Research_Paper-07_30_08.pdf

[7] http://www.edf.org/documents/1889_SomethingtoHide.pdf and http://discovermagazine.com/2009/oct/21-numbers-plastics-manufacturing-recycling-death-landfill





Our finite pool of worry

14 04 2010

Earth Day is coming up and I am having a hard time with climate change.  It’s such a big, complicated issue.  Climate change, according to Columbia University’s Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED),  is  inherently abstract, scientifically complex, and globally diffused in causes and consequences.  People have a hard time grasping the concept, let alone taking action.  What can one person do to have an impact on such an overriding problem?

Turns out I’m not the only one who thinks that way.

Research shows that most Americans are  aware of climate change and even rank it as a concern,  but they don’t perceive it on a par with, say, the economic downturn or health care reform.   According to CRED,  most Americans do not currently associate climate change with disastrous impacts, such as drought, extreme weather events, and coastal flooding. And although most people can recite at least a few things they could do to help mitigate global climate change (like replacing light bulbs or carrying  reuseable grocery bags) – most are not doing them.

I’m ashamed to say,  I’m in that category.  I forget my grocery bags.  I use the car when I should really walk.  I  wash dishes by hand rather than using the dishwasher.  (What’s that?  Did you know that a running faucet can waste 2.5 gallons of water every minute!  So if I do the dishes by hand and it takes me 15 minutes, I’ve just wasted 37.5 gallons of water.  It’s better for me to run the dishwasher  – which uses only 11 gallons of water per use – even if it isn’t full. But I’m an old dog and habits die hard.)    It’s not easy, is it?  Don’t you just feel like throwing up your hands?

I’m faced with decisions every day in our fabric collection that could have far reaching effects – for example, a supplier wants to know if it’s o.k. to use the mill which has antiquated water treatment because that mill is closer (thereby reducing the energy needed for transport) and, not least, they’re cheaper!  There it is again –   Cost.  The bottom line in most decisions.  And if we decide to go with the sub optimal water treatment,  we might gain a cost advantage (so YOU might buy the fabric) but what will it mean in terms of the health of our children and the kind of world we leave them?

Each day I do more research into the effects that synthetic chemicals are having on us and our environment.  It chills me and I really believe that we’re causing ourselves harm.  We’re playing Russian roulette with the chemical mix we allow in our systems – thinking that since we’re not sick now it’s really nothing we have to worry about.   I absolutely believe that long term effects of our love affair with synthetic chemicals will be profound and that we must do something to stem the tide.  I proselytize to expectant mothers (I can’t help myself) about using organic fabrics and mattresses for their infants and themselves – because much of the research shows exposure in utero is when the most harm can be done.  But research also shows that future consequences are discounted, so people think they’ll just put off thinking of this until they have more time.

I guess what I’m getting at is the fact that we still behave in destructive ways – we don’t buy organic foods because it costs more (and it’s not gonna kill us – tomorrow, anyway),  we forget our reuseable grocery bags and we don’t take the time to replace light bulbs.  It’s like losing weight or exercising – we know it’s good for us, but we still don’t do it.

A report entitled The Psychology of Climate Change Communication, released  by CRED, looks at how people process information and decide to take action …  or not.  It seems people can deal with only so much bad news at a time before they tune out.   Social scientists call this the “finite pool of worry”.   And for really big threats like climate change, people are likely to alleviate their worries by taking only one action, even if it’s in their best interest to take more than one action.

For Americans, recycling has become the catchall green measure, the one action that anybody can do and feel that they’re doing something.  As with every action, there are costs and benefits.  The recycling of some products, such as computers and other electronics, creates a more severe strain on the environment that do other types of products, such as newsprint.  Again, even this topic is so fraught with subtleties and variety that dissecting it is hard.

I’d like to focus on plastics because the textile industry has concentrated sustainability efforts on recycled polyesters – many fabric collections claim green credentials because certain of their fabrics are made of recycled, rather than virgin, polyester.  And we all smile and pat ourselves on the back because we’re doing something – and hey, it doesn’t even cost any more.

Polyester is just one of the many plastics that are in use today;  plastic recycling – bottles, packaging, bags – has been adopted  as the mascot of our green efforts – as one school program says, it “teaches children social responsibility and reinforces learning to respect and take care of the environment”.   But what does plastic recycling really accomplish?

Stay tuned.





Fabric structures for the new millenium

10 03 2010

Here we are in  the 21st century, with its acute global issues of over-population, loss of natural habitat, carbon emissions and pollution of all kinds — in a nutshell the specter of diminishing resources and climate change.   What’s a good architect to do?  Some are saying that fabric structures – that ancient way of providing shelter – is in a unique position to contribute significantly to a more sustainable built environment.  Fabric structures  have a modest carbon footprint, minimal post-construction refuse, daylighting and water-harvesting capabilities,  and are relatively  easy and inexpensive to replace.     According to Thomas Fisher, Dean of the College of Design at the University of Minnestoa, “Living lightly on the land is a key principle of sustainability, and fabric allows for that more effectively than almost any other material.”

Architects are finding new and unique ways of using fabric because there is a not so new polymer in their tool kit:  ETFE (ethylene tetrafluoroethylene).  This – some say- is the building material of the future.  It’s a transparent plastic, related to Teflon, and is just 1% the weight of glass, but it transmits more light, is a better insulator and costs 24% to 70% less to install.  It’s also resilient (able to bear 400 times its own weight, with an estimated 50 year life span), is self cleaning (dirt slides off its nonstick surface) and it’s recyclable.

Architects started working with ETFE about 15 years ago, but the material got a boost by being used in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, where it’s an integral part of the distinctive designs of both the Beijing National Stadium (called the Bird’s Nest – see photo on right)  and the Aquatics Center (the Watercube, at the left).

ETFE has been described as a sturdier version of plastic cling wrap.  It can be used in sheets or inflated into pillows.  The 750,000 square foot Watercube is the largest ETFE project ever.  It is clad entirely in blue ETFE cushions.  It’s interesting to note that the Watercube is the first time the Sydney, Australia based PTW Architects, who designed the building, had ever used the fabric.  They were that confident.  Some bubbles in the design span 30 feet without any internal framing – a distance that wouldn’t be possible with other materials.

On an aesthetic level, the cushions reinforce the building’s theme. Their pillowy shapes evoke a bubble’s roundness, and their triple-layered construction, which mixes layers of blue film with transparent film, gives the façade a sense of depth and shifting color. And there’s  the fun factor:  ETFE comes in different finishes and colors, and can be lit from within using LED lights or decorated with light projections like a giant movie screen as in the picture.   Once the Olympics  started officials were able to transform the Watercube walls into a giant TV screen showing simultaneous projections of the swimming activities taking place inside.  It can take myriad shapes too: strips can be heat-welded together like fabric squares in a quilt.

But what is ETFE – and what does it mean that it’s related to Teflon?

ETFE was developed by DuPont, working with NASA, as a thermo plastic version of Teflon.  It was designed to have high corrosion resistance and durability to hold up under oppressive cosmic radiation that NASA would expose it to.

But Dr. Stefan Lehnert, a mechanical engineering student at the time, was looking for better foils for the sails on  his sailboat.  He experimented with ETFE and found a transparent, self cleaning, durable and very flexible material with just 1% weight of glass.  It also expands to three times its normal length without losing elasticity and offers shade and insulation control. Dr. Lehnert founded Vector Foiltec in Germany in 1982, where they sold ETFE as the Texlon Foil System.

Today it’s being touted as the new green alternative.  Why?

Affiliates of Brunel University in Middlesex and Buro Happold Consulting Engineers in London did a study of the environmental effects of ETFE manufacture and use for building cladding (it’s primary use).  The study compares ETFE foil cushions to 6 mm glass and concluded the following:

“ETFE foils can improve the environmental performance of a building from two points of view:  there is the opportunity to reduce the overall environmental burden incurred by the construction process itself; and there is also the opportunity to reduce the burden of the building during its lifetime.  This is all dependent, however, on the ability of the architects and engineers to take advantage of both the flexibility and limitations of ETFE foil cushions.”

Using ETFE can accrue LEED points by giving you opportunities for daylighting a structure, reduction of steel for support structures, and it can save on transport costs because of its light weight.  If you reduce the tonnage of steel, and reduce the raw building materials you have a real capacity to lighten up a building.  The Texlon Foil System, according to the company, has low energy consumption during its manufacturing process ,  much of which includes recycled materials.  The film itself is recyclable – the recycling is aided by the absence of additives in the manufacturing process, requiring only the ETFE and heat.    It can also be a tensile structure for renewable energy sources such as photovoltaic panels and provide shade to keep buildings cool in hot climates.

Larry Medlin, professor and director of the School of architecture at the University of Arizona, says:  “Fabric’s multiple capabilities from catching water, trellising plants, daylighting, and providing shade for cooling, are being looked at seriously,” he says. “Fabric can contribute to a regenerative landscape. This is important. It can’t be overlooked.” Medlin also explains that using fabric structures is one way to bring the indoor outside, as in the Edith Ball Center (shown at right), a project that required re-conceptualizing with a more innovative approach. Instead of being enclosed, the Center’s three community pools — lap, therapy and swimming — are under a dynamic, open fabric system that can be adjusted to season and climate.

But what about the material itself?  And is it really recyclable?  There are no life cycle analyses of ETFE that I know of  (please let me know if you’re aware of one and I’ll post it here) so until we know the carbon footprint issues of this product I’m still a bit skeptical, although there seem to be many points in its favor.

ETFE – ethylene tetrafluoroethylene – is a fluorocarbon based polymer, aka “fluoropolymer” – a type of plastic.  We did a blog posting on flurocarbons a few weeks back which can be accessed here. So the material is of the chemical family consisting of a carbon backbone surrounded by fluorine – part of the “Teflon” family of chemicals.  These chemicals as a group are highly suspect, since PTFE (which is the building block for Teflon) has been found to produce PFOA as a by product.  From our blog post:  ” They (perflurocarbons) are the most persistent synthetic chemicals known to man. Once they are in the body, it takes decades to get them out – assuming you are exposed to no more. They are toxic in humans with health effects from  increased chloesterol to stroke and cancer. Alarmed by the findings from toxicity studies, the EPA announced on December 30, 2009, that PFC’s (long-chain perfluorinated chemicals)would be on a “chemicals of concern” list and action plans could prompt restrictions on PFC’s and the other three chemicals on the list.”  The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants states that PFOS is used in some  ETFE production.

ETFE is not a derivative of a petrochemical.   It is  manufactured from fluorspar (CaF2), trichloromethane (CHCl3) – called chlorodifluoromethane (CHF2CL) –  and hydrogen sulfate (HSO4).  Chlorodifluoromethane is a raw material classified as a class II substance under the Montreal Treaty on ozone depleting substances.   Class II substances are scheduled to be phased out but have a later timeline than Class I substances.

The by products formed during ETFE manufacture  are calcium sulfate (CaSO4), hydrogen fluoride (HF) and hydrochloric acid (HCl).  The calcium sulfate and hydrogen fluoride are reused to produce more fluorspar which can be used again as in input into the manufacturing process.

The manufactured ETFE is sold as pellets, which are then heated and extruded into sheets 50 – 200 microns thick.

As one pundit has said: if this is a recyclable product, what chemicals are running off into our water supply?  Do we know what those ETFE chemicals do to humans – not to mention cows, tree frogs or trees –  if ingested?

One thing we DO know about ETFE is that fumes given off at 300 degrees Centigrade cause flu like symptoms in humans, and above 400 degrees C – they’re toxic.  (1)  I have seen articles which say it is combustible and others that say ETFE is considered self extinguishing.  What everyone agrees on is that in the event of a fire, the foil will then shrink  from the fire source, thereby self-venting,   and letting  smoke out of the building.

I can’t make up my mind on ETFE as a sustainable building material.  What do you think?

(1)  .   http://www.buildnova.com/buildnovav3/buildingsystems/TensileFabric/tensilefabric.htm