Assessing environmental impact of textile supply chain using life cycle assessment methodology

Abstract

The environmental impact of textile supply chain of selected cotton, wool and polyester apparels consumed in Australia was accessed in this study using life cycle assessment methodology. The environmental impact category, climate change was used for this assessment. Climate change is related to the emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and the reference unit of climate change impact category is kg CO 2 equivalent. The environmental impact of these apparels was then scaled up based on their total consumption in Australia in 2015. The results highlight the differences in environmental impact between the three apparels. This study demonstrates that the main contributor to climate change is the consumer use stage for cotton and polyester apparel whereas wool apparel production process contributes more impact than consumer use stage. Energy use is the main factor of environmental impact. Sensitivity analysis was carried out based on the different parameters used to develop baseline model, such as change of transport from airfreight to sea freight; change of transport distance, change of consumer laundering behaviour. Around 10% CO 2 equivalent emission can be reduced from base case by reducing washing machine energy up to 40%. A high efficient washing machine and full load machine wash can save energy and reduce carbon emission. LCA methodological phases Life cycle assessment is a technique to identify the potential environmental impact of any product or process using a systematic set of procedures. Specific procedures and standards are followed

Reducing environmental impacts from garments through best practice garment use and care, using the example of a Merino wool sweater

“…Overall, these results show that a conservative washing frequency, and to a lesser extent, efficient washing loads and limited use of a tumble dryer, are effective ways for consumers to reduce the use phase impacts of wool garments. This is consistent with research showing that the GHG emissions from the life cycle of garments are more sensitive to washing frequency than wash load or drying frequency (Gracey and Moon 2012;Moazzem et al 2018), and that washing machine and dryer water and energy efficiency were more effective at reducing GHG, energy and water impacts than load size and tumble drying frequency (Beton et al 2014). Thus, although our results apply to a specific garment type, a wool sweater, many of the recommendations for reducing the environmental impacts of use phase will also apply for other types of garments.…”

“…(2) because previous research has shown the use phase may be a hotspot for these impacts (Steinberger et al 2009;Cotton Inc. 2016;Zamani et al 2017;Moazzem et al 2018). For GWP, the AR5 100-year global warming potential (GWP 100 ) values (IPCC 2013) were applied with characterisation factors for methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) of 28 and 265 kg CO 2 -eq, respectively.…”

A United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals perspective for sustainable textile and apparel supply chain management

“…LCA can be used to evaluate the environmental and social impacts of textile and apparel from its life cycle perspective ( Moazzem et al, 2018 , Zamani et al, 2018 ). Woolridge et al (2006) study the performance of reuse or recycling of waste textiles by using LCA method from the energy-saving perspective.…”

Natural fibres in next-to-skin textiles: current perspectives on human body odour

“…The lifespan of selected garments across these countries was estimated as (years (range)): socks 2.6 (1.8-3.6), underwear 3. In terms of use, the order of impact least to most was wool < cotton < polyester, largely attributable to the [33]. Change in behaviour of end users (e.g.…”