Grantee Research Project Results
2013 Progress Report: Development of Apparel and Footwear From Renewable Sources (Phase II)
EPA Grant Number: SU836007Title: Development of Apparel and Footwear From Renewable Sources (Phase II)
Investigators: Cao, Huantian , Wool, R. P. , Sidoriak, Emma , Gong, Shijin , Camara, Juliana , Woo, Andrew
Current Investigators: Cao, Huantian , Wool, R. P. , Bonanno, Paula , Kramer, Jillian , Lipschitz, Stacey , Dan, Quan , Sidoriak, Emma , Zuckman, Emma , Cook, Henley , Gong, Shijin , Camara, Juliana , Woo, Andrew , Su, Xintian , Benz, Thomas
Institution: University of Delaware
EPA Project Officer: Page, Angela
Phase: II
Project Period: August 15, 2011 through August 14, 2013 (Extended to August 14, 2014)
Project Period Covered by this Report: August 15, 2012 through August 14,2013
Project Amount: $74,999
RFA: P3 Awards: A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet - Phase 2 (2011) Recipients Lists
Research Category: Pollution Prevention/Sustainable Development , P3 Challenge Area - Chemical Safety , P3 Awards , Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Objective:
In Phase II, we continue to develop apparel and footwear materials from renewable sources such as plant oils, and use these materials to develop more apparel and footwear with different design and style. As in Phase I, we choose female college students as the target users for our design. Our objectives include: (a) developing and evaluating bio-based materials for apparel and footwear products; (b) designing and producing apparel and shoes with different styles using bio-based materials; (c) evaluating the comfort, consumers’ acceptance, and cost of our design and product; (d) evaluating the lifecycle environmental impacts of the materials we developed, and (e) revising the design based on evaluation results and developing educational tool.
Progress Summary:
The project is an interdisciplinary collaboration between faculty and students in the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering (CHEG) and the Department of Fashion and Apparel Studies (FASH). Students in the ACRES (Affordable Composites from Renewable Sources) group in CHEG developed composites from renewable sources. Students in FASH tested these materials and used these materials to design and develop apparel, footwear, and other products.
Materials development
The environmentally friendly leather substitute (eco-leather) was a breathable composite made from natural fiber and mixtures of functionalized plant oils, which included acrylated epoxidized soybean oil (AESO) and methacrylated lauric acid (MLAU) resin. In the P3 Phase I project (SU834707), it was found that the appropriate composition of AESO/MLAU resin was 50:50, thus this composition has been used in this Phase II project. In addition to AESO/MLAU resin, we also used AESO/DBI (50:50) resin in eco-leather development in year 2 (2012-2013). DBI is dibutyl itaconate, a chemical derived from sugar.
In year 1 (2011-2012) annual report, we reported using the Vacuum Assisted Resin Transfer Molding (VARTM) process to make a square yard piece of eco-leather sample (AESO/MLAU (50:50) and woven cotton fabric composite) as in Figure 1(a). Considering the requirements of apparel and footwear products, eco-leather with a matte surface appearance was developed as in Figure 1(b).
Figure 1. Eco-leather from cotton woven fabric and resin composite
After developing footwear prototype (Fig. 4), and testing material evaporative resistance (Ret), we found that eco-leather materials with enhanced stretchability and breathability (as indicated by Ret) performance are desired. Therefore, knit cotton fabrics were used in the composite construction with AESO/MLAU (50:50) resin. The samples were prepared by Resin Transfer Molding (Hot Press with high pressure) technique. The eco-leather sample made from one-layer of single knit fabric is shown in Figure 2(a). The team also developed eco-leather using two layers of single-knit cotton fabric in order to enhance the strength of the composite. After the curing process, eco-leather with two layer knits had poor stretchability and was stiff. After stretching, white marks appeared on the surface of the sample (as in Figure 2(b)), indicating breaking of cured resin. To further enhance stretchability and breathability, AESO/DBI (50:50) resin was used in the composite construction with single knit cotton fabric. The eco-leather sample is Figure 2(c).
Figure 2. Eco-leather from cotton knit fabric and resin composite (a. One-layer single knit fabric and AESO/MLAU (50:50) resin composite; b. Two-layer single knit fabric and AESO/MLAU (50:50) resin composite (after stretching); c. One-layer single knit fabric and AESO/DBI (50:50) resin composite)
Figure 3. Eco-leather from rayon/wool (80/20) non-woven fabric and resin composite
In the micro structure of genuine leather made from animal hide, the collagen fibers are randomly oriented. Therefore, the team also used non-woven fabrics, in which the fibers were randomly oriented in the composite to make eco-leather. The team used wetting tests to qualitatively measure the compatibility of the non-woven fabrics and the resin. It was found that the AESO/MLAU resin is compatible with a variety of non-woven fabrics. Eco-leather fabrics made from 80% rayon/20% wool (both bio-based materials) non-woven fabric is shown in Figure 3 and gave excellent leather-like texture.
Materials testing
Materials testing experiments have been focused on the comfort and durability performance of the eco-leather materials. The comfort tests include measuring thermal resistance (Rct), evaporative resistance (Ret), and stiffness/softness of the samples. Rct and Ret data were measured by a sweating guarded hotplate (Measurement Technology Northwest, Seattle, WA) in accordance with ASTM F1868 (Thermal and evaporative resistance of clothing materials using a sweating hot plate) standard. The stiffness/softness data were measured using a Handle-o-meter (Thwing-Albert Instrument Co., West Berlin, NJ) in accordance with ASTM D6828 (Standard Test Method for Stiffness of Fabric by Blade/Slot Procedure). Durability tests include measuring abrasion resistance, tensile strength and elongation. Abrasion resistance data were measured using a universal wear tester (SDL Atlas USA, Rock Hill, SC) in accordance with ASTM D3885 (Standard Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Textile Fabrics (Flexing and Abrasion Method)). Tensile strength and elongation data were measured using a tensile tester (Model H5KT, Tinius Olsen Inc., Horsham, PA) in accordance with ASTM D5034 (Standard Test Method for Breaking Strength and Elongation of Textile Fabrics).
For comparison, we purchased two genuine leather materials from Waterhouse Leather (Hyannis, MA), and tested comfort and durability performance. The two leather materials are pebble grain cowhide leather (3-3.5 oz) and Italian lambskin leather (1.5-2 oz). The two genuine leather materials testing results are shown in Table 1. For abrasion resistance, none of the two genuine samples damaged after 3,000 cycles of abrasion. After 3,000 cycles of abrasion, the thickness was 98.91% and 99.99% of original thickness for cowhide leather (3-3.5 oz) and lambskin leather, respectively.
Table 1. Comfort and durability performance of genuine leather materials
|
| Rct (ºCˑm2/W) | Ret (Paˑm2/W) | Stiffness (g) | Tensile strength (N) | Elongation (%) |
| cowhide leather (3-3.5 oz) | 0.0236 | 112.10 | 90.69 | 1059 | 53.0 |
| lambskin leather (1.5-2 oz) | 0.0263 | 24.04 | 25.94 | 300.5 | 57.4 |
The testing results of stiffness and abrasion resistance of six eco-leather materials developed in year 1 (AESO/MLAU (50/50 composition) and greige goods organic cotton composites) are in Table 1. None of the six specimens ruptured after 3,000 cycles of abrasion. After 3,000 cycles of abrasion, the remaining thickness of eco-leather samples was in the range of 87.5% (No. 2) to 98.3% (No. 4) of original thickness. These eco-leather samples have good abrasions resistance for apparel and footwear applications. The stiffness measurements of two samples (No. 4 and 5) were out of the testing range (>1,000 g). These two samples were also the thickest. For the other four samples, there existed significant linear relationship between stiffness and thickness (linear regression p-value = 0.006, R2 = 0.988, β0 (intercept) estimate = -1126.8, β1 (slope) estimate = 3025.6). Increasing eco-leather thickness would increase the stiffness. By adjusting the fabric thickness and amount of resin in eco-leather production, appropriate thickness and stiffness for eco-leather can be obtained for different applications.
Table 2. Thickness and stiffness testing results of eco-leather (AESO/MLAU and greige goods organic cotton composites)
| No | Original thickness (mm) | Stiffness (g) | Thickness (mm) after 3000 cycles of abrasion |
| 1 | 0.480 | 333.75 | 0.425 |
| 2 | 0.400 | 84.50 | 0.350 |
| 3 | 0.476 | 294.25 | 0.455 |
| 4 | 0.665 | >1,000 | 0.654 |
| 5 | 0.733 | >1,000 | 0.681 |
| 6 | 0.481 | 338.25 | 0.461 |
The Rct and Ret testing results of eco-leather materials developed by red woven and knit cotton fabrics and resin composites are in Table 3. These two eco-leather materials have lower thermal resistance data than genuine leather, indicating the user will feel cool when wearing products made from eco-leather. The eco-leather made from woven cotton fabric and AESO/MLAU (50:50) composite (Fig. 1(b)) has higher Ret than both genuine leather materials, while the Ret data of eco-leather made from single knit cotton fabric and AESO/DBI (50:50) composite (Fig. 2(c)) is in between the Ret data of the two genuine leather materials. The evaporative resistance (breathability) of eco-leather as in Fig. 2(c) is similar to genuine leather and is more comfortable in apparel and footwear products.
Table 3. Comfort performance of eco-leather materials
|
| Rct (ºCˑm2/W) | Ret (Paˑm2/W) |
| Eco-leather from woven cotton as in Fig. 1(b) | 0.0125 | 372.7 |
| Eco-leather from knit cotton as in Fig. 2(c) | 0.0025 | 45.36 |
Product design and development
At the end of year 1, a square-yard piece of the eco-leather material was developed. A leading athletic footwear company helped the team develop a pair of shoes as in Figure 4. One judge for our Phase I project in the 7th Annual National Sustainable Design Expo, Washington, DC, April 2011 recommended to use the eco-leather materials to develop accessories such as bags, wallets, and purses. In year 2, we further developed some accessories using the newly developed red eco-leather as illustrated in Figure 5.
Figure 4. A shoe made from eco-leather
Figure 5. Handbag and bracelet made from eco-leather
Based on the property of the recently developed eco-leather (knit cotton fabric and resin composites), we designed new shoes as in Figure 6. Currently, we are working with an external consultant (custom shoe maker) on making shoe prototypes.
Figure 6. Shoe designs
Future Activities:
Eco-leather samples with different stiffness/softness property, different colors, appropriate breathability, and large size were developed. Prototypes, including shoes, handbag, and bracelet were designed and developed using these eco-leather materials. Footwear (sandals) was designed based on material property. In the next year, we will continue to develop materials from renewable sources, develop footwear prototypes, design and develop prototypes using eco-leather material, and evaluate the prototypes.
Journal Articles on this Report : 1 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
| Other project views: | All 6 publications | 1 publications in selected types | All 1 journal articles |
|---|
| Type | Citation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Cao H, Wool RP, Bonanno P, Dan Q, Kramer J, Lipschitz S. Development and evaluation of apparel and footwear made from renewable bio-based materials. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education 2014;7(1):21-30. |
SU836007 (2013) |
Exit |
Supplemental Keywords:
Environmentally benign substitute, bio-based feedstock, textile, toxic use reductionProgress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractP3 Phase I:
Development of Apparel and Footwear From Renewable Sources | Final ReportThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.