Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton Textile Products in Turkey
Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton Textile Products in Turkey
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 11 December 2014
Received in revised form 10 August 2015
Accepted 11 August 2015
Available online 17 October 2015
Keywords:
Textile industry
Organic agriculture
Cleaner production
Life cycle assessment
a b s t r a c t
Cotton textile and clothing industry is a complex and multi-tiered system that consists of cotton cultivation and harvesting, ber production, yarn manufacturing, fabric preparation, fabric processing that
includes bleaching and dying sub-processes among others and fabrication of the nal product. An array of
environmental concerns are associated with this sector, the most signicant of which are issues related
to use of agrochemicals in the cultivation of cotton and water, energy and chemical consumption in the
fabric processing stage. Textile industry is a signicant contributor to the Turkish economy constituting
18% of total export volume in 2013 according to Turkish Statistical Institute. In the study, environmental impacts of Eco T-shirts produced from organically grown cotton and processed with green dyeing
recipe were compared to that of conventional T-shirts, in terms of their contributions to global warming,
acidication, aquatic and terrestrial eutrophication and photochemical ozone formation using life cycle
assessment methodology. The results reveal that Eco T-shirts have lower impact potentials across all
inspected categories, with the most dramatic reduction in aquatic eutrophication potential (up to 97%)
due to elimination of nitrogen and phosphorus containing chemical based fertilizers. The results also
show that global warming potential is by far the largest environmental impact for both conventional and
Eco T-shirts with the main impact coming from use phase, followed by cultivation and harvesting and
fabric processing phases. The results of the analysis underline the importance of utilizing sustainable raw
materials in all life cycle stages of cotton textile products and the necessity of focusing on the consumer
behavior and sustainable practices in the use phase of the products as well.
2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The textile and clothing sector consists of a wide number of subsectors, from sourcing of raw materials (bers) to semi-processed
(yarns, woven and knitted fabrics with their nishing process)
and nal consumer products (carpets, home textiles, clothing and
industrial use textiles). The complexity of the sector complicates a
clear-cut classication system for the different activities involved
(EC, 2001a,b). Fibers used in the textile industry are classied into
two main categories: natural and man-made. The natural bers
are derived from vegetable or animal sources. In the year 2010,
man-made bers and natural bers shared about 60.1% and 39.9%
of global textile ber consumption, respectively. Cotton is the
most widely utilized natural ber in the world, accounting for
over 82% of global natural ber consumption (FAO-ICAC, 2013).
Approximately 32.4 million hectares of agricultural land area is
214
unit of function and includes compilation and meaningful evaluation of all inventory data associated with those products.
1.1. LCA of textile products
LCA methodology has been widely applied in textile industry
to evaluate various aspects and life cycle stages of the products,
from cultivation and ber production up until fabric processing
and disposal of used products. Barber and Pellow (2006) aimed
to determine total energy use and carbon dioxide emissions of
New Zealand merino wool. Results showed that merino wool ber
production required a total energy use of 46 MJ/kg half of which
occurred on farm and that on-farm activities accounted for two
thirds of carbon dioxide emissions. Morley et al. (2006) evaluated recycling/recovery/reuse options for second-hand clothing
and observed that, in the context of the CO2 emissions from waste
management choices, the reuse of clothing has a signicant benet over recycling or disposal. It is stated that the maximum reuse
benets are of the order of 33 kg CO2 -eq/kg clothing for a sample of cotton and polyester clothes, compared to a maximum of
about 8 kg CO2 -eq/kg of ber recycling, citing the study conducted
by Marks & Spencer that showed extracted energy of cotton product
and ber manufacture as 5.3 times greater than cotton manufacture alone and 2.9 times greater when comparison is done for
polyester clothes. Woolridg et al. (2006) demonstrated that for
every kilogram of virgin cotton displaced by second-hand clothing approximately 65 kWh is saved, and for every kilogram of
polyester about 90 kWh is saved. University of Cambridge, Institute for Manufacturing evaluated cotton, viscose and nylon bers
with polypropylene and latex-foam backing with LCA methodology. Results of the study indicated that the key environmental
impacts of the sector resulted from use of energy and toxic chemicals (Allwood et al., 2006). Chalmers University of Technology in
Sweden conducted an LCA for three fabrics types for a sofa made of
conventional cotton, Trevira CS (a ame retardant polyester) and
wool/polyamide. The study concluded that Trevira CS was preferable in terms of minimizing environmental impact when choosing
between the three fabric types and the cotton sofa cover was a less
favorable choice. The results of the project indicated that the most
signicant impacts were from cultivation and wet treatment of the
fabric (Dahllf, 2004). Kalliala and Nousianinen (1999) compared
and evaluated different hotel textiles: cotton and cottonpolyester
sheets and concluded that cottonpolyester sheets in hotel use
have fewer environmental impacts than cotton sheets. The reason was the higher durability as well as lower laundering energy
requirements of cottonpolyester sheets.
LCA is also widely applied by the private sector to evaluate the
impacts of not only technical and factory settings but also policy
changes and user behavior and habits on the environmental performance of textile products. Marks & Spencer conducted LCA to assess
the energy requirements for life cycle of a pair of pleated polyester
trousers and a pack of mens cotton briefs. According to ndings,
consumer use corresponds to 76% and 80% of the life cycle energy
needs, respectively (Collins and Aumnier, 2002). Design Mobel
conducted a full LCA of products from raw material inputs, through
manufacturing, to the use of waste by-products and design briefs.
They sourced wood from sustainable forestry operations and used
natural materials including bamboo, cotton, 100% natural latex and
wool in natural manufacturing processes (SBN, 2008).
An integrated and holistic approach is necessary when assessing the sustainability of textile products since actions in one phase
of products life cycle can have direct and indirect effects in other
phases and the overall environmental performance. An LCA study
on bed-sheets conducted by Saxce et al. (2012) demonstrated that
textile product quality parameters, such as lifetime of a product
and ease of care that are determined in the manufacturing phase,
215
216
Table 1
Life cycle scenarios for conventional and Eco T-shirts.
Table 2
Major insecticides used in cotton cultivation (Kooistra and Termorshuizen, 2006a,b).
Scenario
Product
Conventional
T-shirt
0.2
1000
25.93
Eco T-shirt
Eco T-shirt
Eco T-shirt
0.2
1000
25.93
0.2
1000
25.93
0.2
1000
25.93
Conventional
cotton
100
Organic
cotton
100
Organic
cotton
75
Organic
cotton
50
Weight (kg)
Pieces
Total mass loss
(%)
Raw material
Cultivation
productivity
(%)
Wet processing
Conventional
bleaching
Green
dyeing
recipe
Green
dyeing
recipe
Green
dyeing
recipe
Designation of
the substance
Chemical group
of the
substance
Toxicity
class
(WHO)
Deltamethrine
LamdaCyalothrine
Monoctrotophos
AlphaCypermethrine
Chlorpyriphos
Esfenvalerate
Methamidophos
Dimethoate
Pyrethroid
Pyrethroid
II
III
12
9
Organophosphorus
Pyrethroid
Ib
II
9
8
Organophosphorus
Pyrethroid
Organophosphorus
Organophosphorus
II
II
Ib
II
7
7
6
5
Table 3
Major herbicides used for cotton cultivation (Kooistra and Termorshuizen, 2006a,b).
Designation of
the substance
Chemical group
of the
substance
Toxicity class
(WHO)
Applied
area (%)
Triuralin
Msma
Fluometuron
Dinitroanilin
Organoarsenic
Substituted
urea
Dinitroanilin
Substituted
urea
Substituted
triazine
Substituted
triazine
U
n.l.
U
55
29
44
III
U
28
12
19
lb
18
Pendimethalin
Diuron
Prometryn
Cyanazine
217
developed and applied. The study served a dual purpose of determining and reducing the chemical, water and energy consumption
from wet fabric processing at the plant and providing data for the
LCA comparison of conventional and Eco T-shirt products. The general results are specied and expressed by using specic chemical
consumption (kg/kg textile), specic water consumption (L/kg textile) and specic energy consumption (MJ/kg textile).
Water used in dye-house is extracted from wells and softened by
an ion exchanger. The softened water is distributed to the processes
and used in dyeing baths and for cleaning purposes in the facility.
Dye-house wastewater is treated on-site and discharged into sewer
line. Natural gas and electricity are two major sources of energy in
the plant. Part of natural gas is used for steam production in boilers. Wet processing of knitted cotton fabric in dye-house is carried
out in jet dyeing machine. The sub-process of wet processing for
both conventional and Eco T-shirts are bleaching, dyeing, washing,
softening and drying.
Conventional and green dyeing recipes presented in the study
differ in bleaching and washing processes. CP audit has shown that
bleaching is one of the highest water consuming unit operations
in wet processing and increases the pollutant load of wastewater
treatment plant. Bleaching process implemented in conventional
T-shirt production consists of ve cycles of water lling-draining
that represents nearly 50% of total process time and one third of the
total water consumption. Washing represents 55% of total water
consumption and accounts for half of the generated wastewater.
Shortening of process cycles in Eco T-shirt production reduced the
specic water consumption and corresponding energy spending.
Reduction affects not only the consumption of water but also the
consumption of steam for heating up (up to 95 C) the process
baths.
Hydrogen peroxide (H2 O2 ) bleaching in conventional T-shirt
production is both water and energy intensive. Reducing agent,
sodium thiosulfate (Na2 S2 O3 ), is consumed to rinse off H2 O2 prior
to dyeing. Moreover, H2 O2 bleaching requires strongly alkaline conditions which is achieved by addition of caustic soda. Additionally,
wetting agent is used to give homogeneous hydrophility to the fabric and anti-pilling agent is added to degrade starch size on cotton
fabric. Elimination of H2 O2 in the bleaching of Eco T-shirt fabric has
resulted in 60% water and 61.5% energy saving without compromising the fastness properties of nal product. Acetic acid, wetting
agent and anti-pilling agent are applied in a series of two processes
for Eco T-shirt fabric while oil-removing agent is omitted.
Acetic acid and soap are used in washing stage in both conventional and Eco T-shirt fabric processing. Washing stage necessitates
a number of rising cycles to remove unreacted and hydrolyzed
dyestuff from the fabric after dyeing. Washing stage applied
in conventional T-shirt production consists of eight-cycle water
lling-draining. Soap substitution in washing eliminates three
water lling-draining cycles resulting in 37.5% water and 38%
energy saving. Apart from bleaching and washing processes, dyeing, softening and drying operations are similar in both recipes.
Chemical, energy and water consumption values of conventional
and Eco T-shirt production are as summarized in Table 4 and
the exact values for each chemical are provided in Table 5.
Total specic water consumption is reduced from 150 to 90 L/kg
and 39.5% energy saving is achieved through above-mentioned
modications.
3.4. T-shirt making up, use and disposal
The T-shirt making up processes do not involve environmental concerns beyond the use of electricity by machinery and fabric
remnants produced during the cutting-to-size processes. Hence,
only energy consumption and input/output of fabric mass values have been taken into account in evaluation. Average energy
218
Table 4
Energy, water and chemical consumption values of conventional and Eco T-shirt production.
Process
Preparation
Coloration
Finishing
Sub-process
Bleaching
Dyeing
Washing
Softening
Drying
Total
II
II
II
0.118
0.95
0.02
0.04
1.128
0.023
0.95
0.02
0.04
1.033
8.34
1.86
12.63
0.57
1.80
25.20
3.21
1.86
7.84
0.57
1.80
15.28
50
10
80
10
150
20
10
50
10
90
Inputs
Electric power
Steam
Water
Wetting agent
Desizing enzyme
Acedic acid
Sequestering agent
Salt
Soda ash
Dyestuff
Soap
Cationic softener
Silicon
Anticrease agent
Caustic soda
Hydrogen peroxide
Oil removing agent
Stabilizer
Sodyum thiosulphate
Outputs
Dyed fabric
Fabric remnant
Wastewater
COD
Unit
Conventional T-shirt
Eco T-shirt
Scenario A
Scenario B
Scenario C
Scenario D
MJ
MJ
l
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
608.135
5348.848
35,460.000
2.364
0.709
9.456
4.728
165.480
47.280
9.766
2.364
4.728
2.364
2.364
5.910
5.910
1.182
1.182
2.364
447.995
3164.468
21,276.000
2.364
0.709
7.092
2.364
165.480
47.280
9.766
2.364
4.728
2.364
447.995
3164.468
21,276.000
2.364
0.709
7.092
2.364
165.480
47.280
9.766
2.364
4.728
2.364
447.995
3164.468
21,276.000
2.364
0.709
7.092
2.364
165.480
47.280
9.766
2.364
4.728
2.364
kg
kg
l
kg
222.220
14.180
35,171.000
46.06
222.220
14.180
20,987.000
38.74
222.220
14.180
20,987.000
38.74
222.220
14.180
20,987.000
38.74
219
220
221
222
also calls for campaigns for informing the public on the consequences and outcomes of their actions on the environment based
on the results obtained in the study.
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to Sertan Gokpinar from BO Group A.S.
and all the staff from BO Group A.S. for their support throughout
the study.
References
Allwood, J.M., de Rodrguez, C.M., Laursen, S.E., Bocken, N.M.P., 2006. Well
Dressed? The Present and Future Sustainability of Clothing and Textiles in the
United Kingdom. University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing,
Cambridge, U.K.
Aly, A.S., Moustafa, A.B., Hebeish, A., 2004. Bio-technological treatment of
cellulosic textiles. J. Clean. Prod. 12, 697705.
Anthony, W.S., Mayeld, W.D., 1994. Cotton Ginners Handbook, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Center, Agricultural Handbook Number 503.
Government Printing Ofce, Washington, D.C.
Barber, A., Pellow, G., 2006. Life Cycle Assessment: The New Zealand Merino
IndustryMerino Wool Total Energy Use and Carbondioxide Emissions. The
AgriBusiness Group, Auckland, New Zealand.
Bralla, J.G., 2007. Handbook of Manufacturing ProcessesHow Products,
Components and Materials are Made, 1st ed. Industrial Press, U.S.A.
Brentrup, F., Kiisters, J., Lammel, J., Kuhlmann, H., 2000. Methods to estimate
on-eld nitrogen emissions from crop production as an input to LCA studies in
the agricultural sector. Int. J. LCA 6, 349357.
BTTG, 1999. Report 5: Waste Minimisation and Best Practice. British Textile
Technology Group, Manchester, U.K.
Canakci, M., Topakci, M., Akinci, I., Ozmerzi, A., 2005. Energy use pattern of some
eld crops and vegetable production: case study for Antalya region, Turkey.
Energy Convers. Manag. 46, 655666.
Catchot, A., 2007. Cotton Insect Control Guide. Extension Service of Mississippi
State University cooperating with U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.A.
Chaudhry, M.R., 1997. Harvesting and Ginning of Cotton in the World.
International Cotton Advisory Committee, Washington, D.C.
Cherrett, N., Barrett, J., Clemett, A., Chadwick, M.J., 2005. Ecological Footprint and
Water Analysis of Cotton, Hemp and Polyester. BioRegional Development
Group and World Wide Fund for Nature, Switzerland (Cymru Report).
Collins, M., Aumnier, S., 2002. Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment of Two Marks &
Spencer plc Apparel Products. Environmental Resources Management,
England.
Dahllf, L., 2004. Methodological Issues in the LCA Procedure for the Textile
SectorA Case Study Concerning Fabric for a Sofa. Environmental Systems
Analysis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gteborg, Sweden.
Danish Ministry of Environment, 2005. Spatial Differentiation in Life Cycle Impact
AssessmentThe EDIP2003 Methodology. Environmental News No. 80,
Denmark.
EC, 2001a. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. Reference Document on
Best Available Techniques for the Textiles Industry. European Commission,
Seville, Spain (February).
EC, 2001b. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. Reference Document on
Best Available Techniques for the Textiles Industry. European Commission,
Seville, Spain (February).
FAO-ICAC, 2013. World Apparel Fiber Consumption Survey. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations and International Cotton Advisory
Committee, Washington, D.C., USA.
FAO-ICAC, 2015. Measuring Sustainability in Cotton Farming Systems. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and International Cotton
Advisory Committee, Rome, Italy.
Guerena, M., Sullivan, P., 2003. Organic Cotton Production. National Center for
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, U.S.A, http://www.
organicexchange.org (accessed 11.08).
Hauschild, M., Wenzel, H., 2000. Life Cycle AssessmentEnvironmental
Assessment of Products. CRC Press LLC, Denmark, pp. 155189.
ICAC, 1994. Organic Cotton Production II. International Cotton Advisory
Committee, Washington, D.C.
Ingram, M., 2002. Producing the natural ber naturally: technological change and
the US organic cotton industry. Agric. Hum. Values 19, 325336.
Kalliala, E.M., Nousianinen, P., 1999. Life Cycle Assessment Environmental Prole
of Cotton and Polyester-Cotton Fabrics. AUTEX Res. J. 1 (1), 820.
Koc, E., Kaplan, E., 2007. An investigation on energy consumption in yarn
production with special reference to ring spinning. Fibres Text. East. Eur. 15
(4), 63.
Kooistra, K., Termorshuizen, A., 2006a. The Sustainability of Cotton: Consequences
for Man and Environment. Science Shop Wageningen University & Research
Centre, The Netherlands (Report 223).
Kooistra, K., Termorshuizen, A., 2006b. The Sustainability of Cotton: Consequences
for Man and Environment. Science Shop Wageningen University & Research
Centre, The Netherlands (Report 223).
223
Ton, P., 2007. Organic Cotton: An Opportunity for Trade. International Trade Centre
UNCTAD/WTO (ITC), Geneva, Switzerland (Technical Paper, Doc. No.
MDS-07.121.E).
TUIK, 2013. Turkeys Statistical Yearbook 2013, Istanbul, Turkey.
U.S.EPA, 1997. Prole of the Textile Industry, Sector Notebook Project. Ofce of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Washington, D.C
(EPA/310-R-97-009).
UNCTAD, 2002a. United Nations conference on trade and development.
http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/cotton/crop.htm (accessed 08.09).
UNCTAD, 2002b. United Nations conference on trade and development.
http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/cotton/crop.htm (accessed 08.09).
USDA, 2015. Cotton: World Markets and Trade. Unites States Department of
Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S.A.
Woolridg, A.C., Ward, G.D., Phillips, P.S., Collins, M., Gandy, S., 2006. Life cycle
assessment for reuse/recycling of donated waste textiles compared to use of
virgin material: an UK energy saving perspective. Res. Conserv. Recycl. 46,
94103.
Ylmaz, I., Akcaoz, H., Ozkan, B., 2005. An analysis of energy use and input costs for
cotton production in Turkey. Renew. Energy 30, 145155.
Further reading
Chapagain AK, Hoekstra AY, Savenije HHG, Gautam R. The water footprint of cotton
consumption: an assessment of the impact of worldwide consumption of
cotton products on the water resources in the cotton producing countries. Ecol
Econ 2006;60:186203.