Synthetic fabrics, made from chemically manipulated petrochemicals, are some of the most toxic fabrications on Earth.

Last week we discussed the pros and cons of biobased synthetic textiles like Tencel, Modal and other cellulose-based fabrics. The production process of these materials is similar to the production oil-based or petrochemical textiles such as nylon, polyester, acrylic and spandex, which are made from natural gas or oil. Developed during the second half of the last century, these synthetic materials have revolutionized several industries, and been widely adopted in the fashion industry as a low-cost material that allows brands to churn out a variety of colorful apparel at low prices. Petrochemical textiles are a heavily invested area of research, allowing companies to produce highly engineered fabrics that perform better than their natural counterparts. But at what cost?

Petrochemical textile materials are immensely toxic and pollutive to the environment, as they require significant energy, water and chemicals to produce. If the numerous oil spills, waterway contaminations and fracking dangers aren’t making the risks and damage of using these raw materials obvious, I’m not sure what will. Not only does the production of these materials leach waste and toxic substances into our waterways, soil beds, groundwater and landfills, they also (surprised?) can possibly leach into our skin when we wear them. So why do we use them?

Our demand for synthetic textiles has grown by 30 percent in the last 13 years; retailers that feed the fast fashion phenomenon use these low-cost fabrics. As it stands, it is also far less costly to make a shirt from polyester than it is out of cotton, not to mention organic cotton. These fabrics are also easy to manipulate on a microscopic level, resulting in engineered textiles that we have become so accustomed to as consumers. The development of microfibers has allowed textile producers to spin very fine fibers into soft fabrics with engineered moisture-wicking properties. But how can an antibacterial workout top be a good thing if over 100 toxic chemicals were used during the production of that top?

We’ve outlined some of the applications for and problems with the oil-based textiles that we still (because of that bizarre concept of profit over planet) continue to use.

Nylon

Nylon is water repellent, and so ideal for swimsuits, hosiery and lightweight, weatherproof jackets. Nylon is extremely resilient and multi-purpose, as it can be found in anything from underwear to rock climbing rope. However, the production of nylon creates nitrous oxide, which is a greenhouse gas 310 times more polluting than carbon dioxide.

Polyester

Polyester has a bad reputation, although it has long term success in the fabric industry (think 70s leisure suits). The ethylene based material is very strong, resists stretching and shrinking, and dries within a matter of minutes. It’s also wrinkle and abrasion resistant, retains pleats and creases, and repels water. But polyester manufacturing uses plenty of water and energy, and a highly toxic substance called antimony (which most countries other than the US and China have outlawed) as a catalyst.

Acrylic

Acrylic has a similar texture as wool, and so boomed onto the market in the 1960s as it takes dyes beautifully, is colorfast, and unlike wool, resists shrinking. However, this ‘fake wool’ doesn’t provide the same warmth as the real thing, and is essentially a polycrylonitrile, which may be carcinogenic.

Spandex

Spandex was invented in 1959 to give fabric a stretch quality unlike anything that had been seen before in textiles. The production of spandex is rather costly as it is a time consuming and energy intensive process that involves “cracking” petroleum molecules into propylene and ethylene gases before actually creating the fiber. Spandex is often blended with other fibers such as wool and cotton, but tends to break down over time.

The substances used to manipulate and characterize these textiles are highly toxic, which is also an issue with biobased synthetics. Anti-cling, wrinkle-free, waterproof and fire-retardant materials have all been treated with highly toxic chemicals, most often formaldehyde. Even several natural fibers like cotton and wool are treated with these substances, meaning that the textile industry is saturated with them. A major drawback to petrochemical textiles is their non-biodegradibility, meaning that their negative effects continue to affect the Earth even after they have been discarded.

Although finding clean clothing, home textiles and accessories might seem impossible, the labels on products can tell us a lot. Unfortunately the textile supply chain is currently so disjointed that it is often hard to know exactly how a fabric was produced. Look for labels on clothing and home textiles and check for different certification labels to find out how clean the fabric is. Better yet, look for locally produced fabrics when you can. The Fibershed Project in Marin County, CA is a wonderful example and resource for learning how a textile is made from plant or animal to wearable product.

Photo Credit: www.rowenawaack.com

Related on Ecosalon:

Dropless and environmentally friendly dyeing from Dyecoo

Fiber Watch: Nylon Gets and New (Recycled) Lease on Life

The post Synthetic Fabrics Made From Fossil Fuels Are Worse Than You Think: Fiber Watch appeared first on EcoSalon.

They’re convenient, cheap and widely perceived as necessary, but products such as frozen meals and bottled water can leave you cold when you think of the waste. We are spending way too much manufacturing products we either don’t need or shouldn’t buy, because of the damage they do or the ingredients they contain. An estimated 56% of all energy we produce in the U.S. is wasted during production and also chalked up to poor technology and design.

Here are a few to products to reconsider:

1. Bottled Water

According to the Pacific Institute, the production, packaging and delivering of a liter of bottled water consumes between 1,100 and 2,000 times more energy than treating and transporting the same amount of tap water. Scientists conducting the research found that making those plastic bottles alone worldwide uses 50 million barrels of oil annually – which could supply the total demand for oil in the U.S. for more than two days. Meeting the demand as a whole in the country requires energy equal to between 32 million and 54 million barrels of oil (and quenching needs worldwide is three times that amount). Most tap water is safe to drink unless you have health problems, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.

2. Synthetic Fabrics

Producing clean organic Merino wool in New Zealand takes far less energy than the synthetic alternatives that are hugely popular in modern garments because of the cheaper factory assembly and retail price points.  According to the Merino Life Cycle Assessment project, yielding a kilogram of wool tops takes 46 megajoules (MJ) of energy which involves the farming and shearing of sheep, sorting, blending and scouring the wool and shipping the top (the ribbon of wool from the combing machine) to Shanghai. Meanwhile, synthetics from fossil fuels such as nylon sucks five times as much energy to make a similar fabric; acrylic takes 3.8 times as much energy and polyester 2.7 times as much.  Analysts also find cotton and viscose (from wood pulp) take more energy as well to be spun into fabrics. Cotton is closer to wool in terms of efficiency but it leaves a heavier footprint overall because it requires more water, fertilizer and pesticides to produce.

3. Short Lived Cell Phones

Yep, new styles are introduced all of the time and appeal strongly to text-addict teens drawn to colors, bells and whistles. The EPA tells us if we recycled the 130 million or cell phones tossed every year, we would have enough energy to power more than 24,000 homes annually. Currently, only 10% of the phones are recycled.  Making and processing of the phones pollutes air and water and adds greatly to greenhouse emissions, and for every one million recycled, we could recover an estimated 75 pounds of gold, 772 pounds of silver, 33 pounds of palladium, and 35, 274 pounds of copper.

4. Cardboard Moving Boxes

At a time when new, green alternatives are becoming widely available, you have to wonder why we’re still stuck on making single-use cardboard moving boxes which expend energy to make and waste shameful amounts to break down and recycle – hence the massive amounts of the boxes in our landfills. Making one ton of cardboard uses some 17 trees, 79 gallons of oil, 7,000 gallons of water and 42,00 kilowatts of energy. This is a case where plastic makes more sense as long as it is reusable and made from recycled materials – as with new reusable alternatives like Recopack and the Karmaboxx.

5. Frozen Foods

The frozen foods industry argues it is highly sustainable and buying frozen peas and whatnot means fewer trips to the market which saves on gas. But critics argue most of the foods are unhealthy (often high in sodium and fat calories) and the massive energy to make, box and ship the “convenience” foods to supermarkets is only the beginning. The real chill factor is the energy supermarkets waste with their refrigeration systems. Research shows markets spend more than 50% of their energy costs keeping food and drinks cold for us, a large percentage in open front or open top units to make products more attractive. Can we live without frozen, including the good stuff like Amy’s pizza? The truth is, the healthiest foods are fresh ones we make ourselves. True, steaming on the stove or slow cooking in a crockpot uses energy too, but nearly not as much as the frozen option, and you can store it in an Energy Star appliance in your own home.

Images: Hieropenen; Dospaz; Rich 115; Rutlo; Compujeremey; Shimmergreen.

The post 5 Energy-Hungry Products We Should Ditch appeared first on EcoSalon.