Is Polyester Better Than Cotton? A Data-Driven Comparison
Polyester and cotton serve different purposes. Cotton absorbs moisture directly into the fiber — moisture regain 7-8.5% at standard conditions per ASTM D2654 — while polyester repels water (regain 0.4%) and transports liquid via capillary action between fibers. Polyester wins on durability (typically 30,000+ Martindale cycles under ISO 12947 abrasion vs 10,000-20,000 for comparable cotton), dimensional stability, wrinkle resistance, and quick drying. Cotton wins on absorbency, biodegradability in aquatic environments (Zambrano et al., 2019, Marine Pollution Bulletin), and skin microclimate management. Neither fiber is universally better; the right choice depends on use case, construction, and which trade-offs matter most for the application. This article is the umbrella hub for cotton vs polyester; for the breathability deep-dive see cotton vs polyester breathability lab data, and for current commodity and finished-fabric pricing see cotton vs polyester price.
Polyester and cotton at a glance: fiber-level properties
The 17-20:1 difference in moisture regain between cotton and polyester is the single largest physical-property gap among common apparel fibers. The values below describe the fiber in standard conditions; the fabric built from each fiber can perform very differently depending on weave, knit, weight, and finish — see the construction section further down.
| Property | Cotton | Polyester (PET) | Source / standard |
|---|---|---|---|
| Polymer | Cellulose (natural) | Polyethylene terephthalate (synthetic) | Morton & Hearle 2008 |
| ISO 2076:2021 class | Natural cellulosic | Synthetic | ISO 2076:2021 |
| Density (g/cm³) | 1.54 | 1.38 | Morton & Hearle 2008 |
| Fiber diameter (μm) | 12-22 | 10-25 (typical filament) | Cook, Handbook of Textile Fibres, 2001 |
| Staple length (mm) | 22-30 (Upland); 35-60 (Pima/Egyptian) | Continuous filament or cut staple | Industry standard |
| Cross-section | Kidney-bean with hollow lumen | Round (or engineered tri-lobal, hollow) | Morton & Hearle 2008 |
| Moisture regain at 20 °C / 65% RH (%) | 7.0-8.5 | 0.4 | ASTM D2654; Morton & Hearle 2008 |
| Tenacity dry (g/denier) | 3.0-5.0 | 4.5-9.0 | Morton & Hearle 2008; ASTM D1577 |
| Tenacity wet (g/denier) | 3.3-6.0 (stronger when wet) | ~same as dry | Morton & Hearle 2008 |
| Elongation at break (%) | 6-10 | 15-45 (depends on draw) | Morton & Hearle 2008 |
| Fabric thermal conductivity (W/m·K) | ~0.04 | ~0.14-0.20 | Textile-physics literature (cotton: 0.04-0.05; polyester: 0.14-0.18 in finished knits) |
| Melting / decomposition | Chars and burns (no melt) | Melts 255-270 °C | Industry standard |
| Aquatic biodegradability | Degrades | Persists for decades | Zambrano et al. 2019 |
What is cotton?
Cotton is a natural cellulosic fiber harvested from the seed bolls of plants in the genus Gossypium. Four species are commercially significant. Gossypium hirsutum (Upland cotton) accounts for approximately 90% of global production and yields 22-30 mm staple length. Gossypium barbadense — the species behind Pima, Supima®, Egyptian Giza grades, and Sea Island cotton — yields longer staple (35-60 mm), finer fiber diameter (often 12-17 μm), and higher tenacity. The two minor species, Gossypium arboreum and Gossypium herbaceum, are grown on smaller scales primarily in South Asia.
The fiber polymer is cellulose (~95% in dried cotton), with smaller fractions of hemicellulose, pectin, and natural waxes in raw fiber. Most of the wax and pectin is removed during scouring before dyeing, so finished cotton is hydrophilic — it absorbs water rather than repelling it. This contradicts a common claim circulating in consumer-facing fabric guides that “manufacturers coat cotton fibers with a natural protective wax to make them water-resistant.” The wax is on raw cotton, it is removed in scouring, and finished cotton’s high moisture regain is the reason cotton absorbs sweat rather than shedding it.
The convoluted kidney-bean cross-section with central lumen produces both the natural twist that helps cotton fibers cohere when spun and the interior channel that lets cotton absorb moisture into the fiber rather than only between fibers.
American Pima — the premium long-staple variety marketed under the Supima® trademark — is cultivated mainly in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The Pima cotton profile covers staple length, fiber diameter, and the FTC enforcement context around mislabeled “Egyptian” cotton claims that has been live since 2016.
What is polyester (PET)?
Polyester in apparel almost always refers to polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a synthetic polymer produced from petrochemical feedstocks (typically purified terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol) or chemically recycled from depolymerized PET bottles. The resulting polymer is melted, extruded through spinnerets, drawn to align polymer chains, and heat-set to lock dimensions.
Filament denier and cross-section can be engineered in ways cotton cannot. Standard textile-grade polyester ranges from approximately 10 to 25 μm in filament diameter at common denier ranges; performance polyester for activewear uses tri-lobal or hollow cross-sections to increase the surface area available for capillary moisture transport, plus modified surface chemistries (hydrophilic finishes) to improve wicking. Recycled polyester (rPET) made from post-consumer PET bottles is chemically identical to virgin PET, though some studies have measured small differences in crystallinity and tensile strength — for the full data picture on rPET, see whether recycled polyester is actually better.
Several familiar trade names map to engineered polyester: Coolmax® and Thermolite® are Invista trade names for engineered polyester; Polartec® refers to polyester fleece; Capilene® is Patagonia’s polyester base layer trade name; REPREVE® is Unifi’s recycled PET. These are all the same base fiber (PET) with different processing, finishes, and yarn engineering — wicking and recycled provenance change yarn structure and feedstock source, not chemistry. This is still plastic: every wash releases microfibers regardless of brand or recycling, and post-disposal biodegradation takes 200+ years (see Microplastic section below).
Moisture behavior — absorption versus wicking
Cotton absorbs moisture into the fiber. Water molecules form hydrogen bonds with cellulose hydroxyl groups, and the lumen channel adds capillary capacity. At 20 °C and 65% relative humidity (the standard conditioning condition under ASTM D1909 / ASTM D2654), cotton holds 7-8.5% of its dry weight as bound moisture. In saturated conditions, cotton fabrics can hold many times their dry weight in free water (a wet cotton T-shirt weighs noticeably more than a dry one — most of that added weight is interfiber capillary water, not bound moisture). The “27 times its weight in water” figure that circulates on consumer sites refers to free-water uptake of cotton fabric structures in saturated conditions, not to fiber moisture regain — these are different measurements.
Polyester does not absorb moisture into the fiber. PET is hydrophobic; the polymer chain has very few sites where water can hydrogen-bond. Moisture regain at standard conditions is approximately 0.4% — about 1/20th of cotton’s. What polyester can do, when engineered for it, is wick — transport liquid water through the spaces between fibers via capillary action. The smaller the spaces and the higher the surface energy of the fiber surface (after a hydrophilic finish is applied), the faster the capillary transport. AATCC Test Method 195 (Liquid Moisture Management Properties of Textile Fabrics) is the standardized test that measures this behavior.
Cotton’s absorption-and-evaporation mechanism wins for low-intensity activity in still air or sleep environments; engineered polyester’s surface-wicking mechanism wins for high-intensity activity where sweat output exceeds cotton’s absorption rate. For the full lab-data comparison of breathability metrics including air permeability and Ret, see the cotton vs polyester breathability data.
Breathability is a property of the fabric, not the fiber
Air permeability — the metric most readers actually have in mind when they ask whether a fabric “breathes” — is determined primarily by fabric construction, not fiber. Under ISO 9237 (Determination of permeability of fabrics to air), the variables that drive permeability are weave or knit structure, yarn count, sett (threads per unit width and length), and fabric weight (GSM). The fiber affects the result through secondary mechanisms (fiber swelling when wet, surface friction, yarn packing density), but a polyester mesh has higher air permeability than a densely woven cotton sateen at the same GSM.
At equivalent plain-weave construction, ASTM D737 data shows cotton with a modest single-digit-percentage advantage in air permeability over polyester — but weight and construction shift the result by far more than fiber type does. For the weave-by-weave matrix (poplin, twill, jersey, oxford) and wet-state behavior where the gap narrows or reverses, see cotton vs polyester breathability lab data.
For shoppers, GSM and weave outrank fiber when predicting breathability:
- A 110-130 g/m² polyester athletic mesh will feel more breathable than a 200+ g/m² cotton oxford.
- A 100 g/m² cotton voile will feel more breathable than either.
- A 280 g/m² cotton denim will feel less breathable than a 130 g/m² polyester woven shirt.
At equivalent weight and construction, cotton is approximately 14% more permeable to air than polyester in dry conditions; in wet conditions cotton fibers swell and the gap shrinks or reverses.
Thermal behavior — how each fiber feels on the skin
Cotton feels cooler than polyester at first contact in most casual-wear conditions. Two mechanisms explain this.
1. Fabric thermal conductivity. Cotton fabrics register around 0.04 W/m·K vs polyester around 0.14-0.20 W/m·K. Higher conductivity moves heat between body and surroundings more readily; polyester traps body heat when it also traps moisture against skin.
2. Heat of sorption. Cotton’s high moisture regain produces a steady supply of bound moisture migrating outward and evaporating from the outer fabric surface. Polyester does not absorb moisture, so this evaporative-cooling channel is unavailable — the only moisture polyester can move is liquid sweat already on the skin.
For hot sleepers, cotton percale sheets feel cooler than polyester microfiber sheets in still air at similar GSM. The bedding microclimate is largely a still-air application, which favors cotton’s absorption-and-evaporation mechanism.
Durability — abrasion, tensile, dimensional stability
Polyester is more durable than cotton across most laboratory metrics:
- Abrasion (ISO 12947 Martindale). Polyester typically passes 30,000-50,000+ double rubs in standard fabric construction, versus 10,000-20,000 for cotton at comparable construction. The advantage is largest in high-friction applications (workwear, upholstery, school uniforms, bedding subject to body-weight friction).
- Tensile strength (ASTM D5034 grab strength on fabric). Polyester registers higher break loads at equivalent fabric weight. Cotton gains about 10-20% in tensile strength when wet; polyester is essentially unchanged wet vs dry.
- Pilling (ASTM D3512 random tumble or ISO 12945 Martindale). Polyester typically pills more than cotton in spun-staple constructions. Cotton’s lower fiber strength means broken fibers detach from the surface; polyester’s higher strength means broken fibers remain attached and ball up. This is why polyester knits tend to pill in friction-heavy areas (cuffs, underarms, seat).
- Dimensional stability (AATCC 135 home laundering shrinkage / ISO 5077). Polyester is heat-set during manufacturing and resists shrinkage — typically <1% on first wash. Cotton without sanforization shrinks 3-10% on first home laundering; sanforized cotton (mechanically pre-shrunk) is typically held under 1% by AATCC 135.
- UV resistance. Polyester resists ultraviolet degradation longer than cotton, though both are eventually weakened by prolonged sun exposure.
Microplastic shedding and biodegradability
The single largest environmental difference between cotton and polyester at end-of-life is biodegradability. Zambrano et al. (2019), in Marine Pollution Bulletin, tested microfibers from laundering of cotton, rayon, and polyester fabrics under simulated aquatic conditions and confirmed that cotton and rayon biodegrade in marine and freshwater systems while polyester persists for decades, accumulating in wastewater treatment plants, marine sediments, and the food chain.
Estimates of per-wash shedding vary widely. Napper & Thompson (2016), in Marine Pollution Bulletin, measured microplastic fiber release from synthetic garments during domestic laundering and reported approximately 496,030 fibers per 6 kg wash load for polyester (the often-cited ~700,000 figure in that paper was for acrylic, which shed 728,789 fibers per load). Hernandez, Nowack, and Mitrano (2017), in Environmental Science & Technology, characterized the mechanism of fiber release and found shedding correlates with fiber breakage during agitation; older polyester garments and those with pilled surfaces shed more. De Falco et al. (2019) reported polyester garments releasing approximately 124-308 mg of microfibers per kg of fabric per wash, with broader ranges across constructions.
A commonly repeated marketing claim — “recycled polyester sheds less microplastic” — is not supported by the available data. A 2020 study from UC Santa Barbara found no statistically significant difference in microfiber shedding between virgin and recycled polyester. Some peer-reviewed work has observed that recycled polyester sheds more in accelerated tests than virgin PET, attributed to recycling-induced reductions in polymer chain length and fiber tenacity. The full review of recycled polyester data is in the recycled polyester article.
Conventional cotton requires approximately 2,500 liters of water per 250-gram t-shirt (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2011, Water Footprint Network), and the global cotton crop has historically carried high pesticide and insecticide loads relative to other major crops. Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) cotton, GOTS-certified organic cotton, and rain-fed dryland cotton reduce these inputs but do not eliminate them.
No fiber wins on all environmental axes. Microplastic and biodegradability priorities favor cotton (especially organic / BCI); water and pesticide priorities favor polyester (especially recycled). CO2 footprint per kg of fiber depends on production geography and energy mix.
Common claims about polyester and cotton, reviewed
The most-repeated claims in consumer-facing comparisons, with measurable verdicts:
| Claim | Verdict | Why |
|---|---|---|
| ”Cotton is hypoallergenic” | No regulatory meaning | ”Hypoallergenic” has no FDA or EU regulatory definition for textiles. Cotton can carry residual processing chemicals (formaldehyde from wrinkle-resistance finishes per AATCC 112, azo dyes) that are themselves allergens. The honest claim is that cotton’s higher moisture absorption reduces friction-irritation in the skin microclimate — not that it is “hypoallergenic” in any defined sense. |
| ”Polyester is not breathable” | Misleading | Air permeability under ISO 9237 is determined by fabric construction, not fiber. Polyester mesh has higher permeability than densely woven cotton sateen at the same GSM. The fiber itself does not breathe; the fabric structure does. |
| ”Polyester wicks moisture” | True but incomplete | The mechanism is capillary action between fibers, not absorption into the fiber. Wicking performance depends on engineered yarn cross-sections (tri-lobal, hollow), surface finishes, and knit structure. Untreated, densely woven polyester does not wick well. |
| ”Cotton is biodegradable, polyester isn’t” | True | Confirmed in aquatic systems by Zambrano et al. 2019 (Marine Pollution Bulletin); cotton and rayon biodegrade, polyester persists for decades. |
| ”Recycled polyester sheds less microplastic” | Disputed / false | UCSB 2020 study found no significant difference between virgin and recycled PET shedding; some peer-reviewed work has measured higher shedding from rPET due to reduced fiber tenacity. |
| ”Polyester causes acne or skin irritation” | Unsupported | No large-cohort dermatology study has confirmed a causal link between PET fiber and skin disease. Reported irritation typically traces to dyes, formaldehyde finishes, and microclimate humidity rather than to the fiber. The full breakdown of finish-chemistry-vs-fiber irritation is in why polyester can cause itching. |
| ”Cotton is more sustainable than polyester” | Conditional | Depends on which environmental axis is weighted. Conventional cotton uses ~2,500 L water per t-shirt and historically high pesticide loads; polyester sheds persistent microfibers. Neither is clean. |
| ”Polyester smells worse than cotton” | True, with mechanism | Callewaert et al. (2014, Applied and Environmental Microbiology) measured a hedonic odor score of -2.04 for polyester after a single fitness session and 28-hour incubation versus -0.61 for cotton (P = 5.72 × 10⁻⁶). The mechanism is that polyester’s hydrophobic surface preferentially adsorbs sebum and the long-chain fatty acids that bacteria metabolize into odor compounds — see why polyester traps body odor for the full bacterial-substrate analysis. |
Which fiber should you choose? A use-case decision matrix
For 8h+ skin-contact applications (sleepwear, daily T-shirts, bedding), natural fiber is the FabricData baseline. The matrix below shows the specific contexts in which measurable performance data favors engineered polyester instead.
| Use case | Cotton verdict | Polyester verdict | Recommended choice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hot-weather casual wear (still air) | Strong — absorbs sweat, lower thermal conductivity | Weak in densely woven; OK in mesh | Cotton (lightweight poplin or jersey, ~100-150 g/m²) |
| High-intensity activewear (sustained sweat) | Weak — saturates and stays wet | Strong with engineered wicking finish | Engineered polyester (or merino wool for odor) |
| Bedding for hot sleepers | Strong (percale, ~150-200 g/m²) | Weak unless engineered for moisture | Cotton percale or linen |
| Bedding budget option | Mid — entry-level cotton can pill | Strong — microfiber polyester is the cheapest durable option | Polyester microfiber (lower microplastic shedding from woven structures than from knits) |
| Workwear / uniforms | Mid — lower abrasion resistance | Strong — durable, easy-care, but holds odor | Poly-cotton 65/35 blend |
| Sensitive skin / lowest microclimate humidity | Mid — absorbency helps; finishes can irritate | Mid — no peer-reviewed allergy link to fiber; finishes can irritate | Mercerized long-staple cotton, OEKO-TEX Standard 100 certified |
| Wrinkle-free dress shirts | Weak unless DMDHEU-finished | Strong inherently | 100% polyester or 60/40 polyester-cotton |
| Print-on-demand apparel (long-term color hold) | Mid — absorbs ink well | Strong — sublimation prints onto polyester only | Polyester for sublimation; cotton or blend for screen / DTG |
| Environmental priority — water and pesticides | Higher costs (conventional) | Lower water; petroleum-based | Recycled polyester or BCI / GOTS cotton |
| Environmental priority — microplastic shedding | Lower (cotton biodegrades aquatically) | Higher (sheds persistent microfibers) | Cotton, ideally organic |
For shirting where weave dominates feel, the comparison of plain weaves (poplin), basket weaves (oxford), and twills cuts across both fibers — see shirt fabric types. For blends rather than pure fibers, the linen-polyester blend article covers similar trade-offs at the linen-PET interface (linen regain ~12% vs PET 0.4%).
Polyester vs cotton in sheets and bedding
A 280-thread-count cotton percale and a 280-thread-count polyester microfiber sheet differ sharply in surface feel, breathability, and longevity despite identical thread-count specs — see why thread count above 400 has no correlation with sheet quality.
For hot sleepers, cotton percale (plain weave, ~150-200 g/m², long-staple cotton) typically outperforms polyester microfiber in still-air bedroom conditions because cotton’s higher moisture regain absorbs perspiration into the fiber and releases it to the room atmosphere via evaporation. Polyester microfiber sheets do not absorb perspiration; sweat sits on the surface, increasing perceived clamminess. Users who prioritize shape retention, lower price, and easy laundering get all three from polyester microfiber. The same fiber-mechanism analysis applies to viscose sheets marketed as bamboo — see the bamboo vs percale comparison.
Polyester vs cotton blends
The primary motivation for blending is cost — polyester staple fiber is roughly 4-5× cheaper raw material than cotton (see the price article for current spreads), so a 65/35 polyester-cotton blend can cut fabric cost by 30-40% compared with 100% cotton. The technical benefits (wrinkle resistance, dimensional stability, lower shrinkage) are a side effect of that cost-driven decision. The three most common blend ratios:
- 65/35 polyester-cotton. Dominant uniform and workwear blend. Polyester provides abrasion resistance and dimensional stability; cotton provides surface hand and reduces visible pilling.
- 50/50 polyester-cotton. Balanced trade-off — common in casual T-shirts and inexpensive button-downs.
- 80/20 cotton-polyester. Cotton-dominant; small polyester fraction reduces shrinkage and improves durability. Hand and absorbency close to 100% cotton.
A subtle note: blends do not necessarily reduce breathability. Asfand & Daukantienė (2023) tested cotton/antistatic polyester knits and found that both water vapor permeability and air permeability increased with polyester content, because polyester fibers act as structural scaffolding that prevents cotton fibers from collapsing inter-yarn gaps when they swell from moisture. The finding does not generalize to all polyester types (antistatic polyester has modified cross-sections) but it does invalidate the simple assumption that blending polyester into cotton always reduces breathability proportionally.
Any polyester content will shed microplastic — blends reduce shedding per gram only because there is less polyester per gram. For daily skin-contact garments (T-shirts, dress shirts, sleepwear, bedding), 100% cotton remains the first-choice baseline; blends are described here informationally, not as a default recommendation.
Production and supply chain
Cotton. Plant → harvest mechanically (Upland) or by hand (Pima, Egyptian Giza) → gin → bale → spin → weave or knit → finish (mercerize, sanforize, bleach, dye, optional DMDHEU non-iron) → cut and sew. Total cycle: typically 8-14 months.
Polyester. Refine crude oil / natural gas → paraxylene + ethylene → terephthalic acid (PTA) + ethylene glycol (MEG) → polymerize to PET (or, for rPET, depolymerize sorted post-consumer PET bottles and repolymerize) → melt and extrude through spinneret → draw and heat-set → texture or filament → weave or knit → finish (disperse-dye at ~130 °C, optional DWR, optional antimicrobial). Total cycle: weeks to a few months.
Cotton properties vary with growing region, season, and ginning; polyester properties are uniform batch-to-batch because polymerization is controlled in a closed system. Polyester garments are easier to manufacture to tight specifications; cotton requires more lot-by-lot quality testing.
Price ranges
Cotton is typically more expensive than polyester at both commodity and finished-fabric tiers, with the spread depending on cotton grade (Upland vs Pima/Supima/Egyptian/organic) and polyester type (virgin vs rPET, staple vs engineered filament). For current ICE Cotton #2 and US polyester staple fiber (PSF) commodity spreads, the 10-year price history, the rPET premium, and per-yard finished-fabric pricing across Upland, Pima, GOTS organic, and OEKO-TEX certified shirting, see the cotton vs polyester price article.
Standards, certifications, and labeling
For U.S. consumers, the relevant labeling regime is the FTC Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (16 CFR 303), which requires accurate disclosure of fiber percentages on garment labels. “100% cotton” and “100% polyester” claims are regulated; blended garments must disclose all fibers above 5% by weight.
Relevant certifications for cotton:
- GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) — organic fiber + restricted chemical processing throughout the supply chain.
- OEKO-TEX Standard 100 — finished-product testing for restricted substances (350+ chemicals).
- Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) — sustainability standard for cotton growing.
- Supima® — trademark for American Pima cotton from Supima Association member growers.
Relevant certifications for polyester:
- GRS (Global Recycled Standard) — minimum 50% recycled content for full label, supply chain audit.
- RCS (Recycled Claim Standard) — recycled content verification (less stringent than GRS).
- OEKO-TEX Standard 100 — same finished-product testing as for cotton.
- bluesign® — manufacturing-process standard for inputs and emissions.
A note on health and YMYL claims
This article does not make medical claims. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is FDA-approved for direct food contact and is not categorized as a hazardous substance for skin contact in any regulatory framework reviewed for this article. The phrase “polyester is toxic” circulates widely on consumer sites but has no peer-reviewed dermatology literature supporting it. Reported skin reactions to polyester garments are generally attributed to (a) dyes, especially disperse dyes such as Disperse Blue 106 and 124, (b) formaldehyde-releasing wrinkle-resistance finishes, and (c) microclimate humidity from polyester’s near-zero moisture regain — not to PET fiber itself.
“Cotton is hypoallergenic” is similarly imprecise — “hypoallergenic” has no FDA or EU regulatory definition for textiles, and cotton can carry residual formaldehyde finishes, azo dyes, and heavy metals that act as allergens in patch testing.
For users with diagnosed contact dermatitis or established sensitivity to specific textile chemicals, the relevant guidance is patch testing (the European Contact Dermatitis Network and the American Contact Dermatitis Society maintain test panels) and selecting OEKO-TEX Standard 100 Product Class I (skin-contact) or Class II (next-to-skin) certified textiles, which limit residual finishing chemicals below defined thresholds. This guidance applies regardless of fiber.
Sources and further reading
Standards:
- ASTM D2654 — Standard Test Methods for Moisture in Textiles. store.astm.org/d2654-22
- ASTM D1577 — Standard Test Methods for Linear Density of Textile Fibers (basis for tenacity values). store.astm.org/d1577-07r18
- ASTM D737 — Air Permeability of Textile Fabrics. store.astm.org/d0737-18r23
- ASTM D1909 — Standard Table of Commercial Moisture Regains for Textile Fibers (textual reference).
- ASTM D3512 — Pilling Resistance, Random Tumble Pilling Tester (textual reference).
- ASTM D5034 — Breaking Strength of Textile Fabrics, Grab Test (textual reference).
- AATCC Test Method 195 — Liquid Moisture Management Properties of Textile Fabrics. aatcc.org
- AATCC TM 135 — Dimensional Changes of Fabrics after Home Laundering. aatcc.org
- AATCC TM 112 — Formaldehyde Release from Fabric (textual reference).
- ISO 9237:1995 — Textiles. Determination of the permeability of fabrics to air. iso.org/standard/16869
- ISO 11092:2014 — Textiles. Measurement of thermal and water-vapour resistance under steady-state conditions (sweating guarded-hotplate test). iso.org/standard/65962
- ISO 12947-2:2016 — Determination of the abrasion resistance of fabrics by the Martindale method. iso.org/standard/61058
- ISO 12945 — Determination of fabric propensity to surface pilling, fuzzing or matting (textual reference).
- ISO 5077:2007 — Textiles. Determination of dimensional change in washing and drying. iso.org/standard/41877
- ISO 2076:2021 — Textiles. Man-made fibres. Generic names. iso.org/standard/79685
- FTC Textile Fiber Products Identification Act — 16 CFR Part 303. ecfr.gov/title-16/part-303
Peer-reviewed studies:
- Zambrano, M.C., Pawlak, J.J., Daystar, J., Ankeny, M., Cheng, J.J., Venditti, R.A. (2019) — Microfibers generated from the laundering of cotton, rayon and polyester based fabrics and their aquatic biodegradation, Marine Pollution Bulletin 142: 394-407. doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.04.062
- Napper, I.E. & Thompson, R.C. (2016) — Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres from domestic washing machines: Effects of fabric type and washing conditions, Marine Pollution Bulletin 112: 39-45. doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.025
- Hernandez, E., Nowack, B., Mitrano, D.M. (2017) — Polyester Textiles as a Source of Microplastics from Households: A Mechanistic Study to Understand Microfiber Release During Washing, Environmental Science & Technology 51: 7036-7046. doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b01750
- De Falco, F., Pace, E., Cocca, M., Avella, M. (2019) — The contribution of washing processes of synthetic clothes to microplastic pollution, Scientific Reports 9: 6633. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43023-x
- Callewaert, C., De Maeseneire, E., Kerckhof, F.-M., Verliefde, A., Van de Wiele, T., Boon, N. (2014) — Microbial odor profile of polyester and cotton clothes after a fitness session, Applied and Environmental Microbiology 80: 6611-6619. doi.org/10.1128/aem.01422-14
- Mekonnen, M.M. & Hoekstra, A.Y. (2011) — The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 15: 1577-1600. hess.copernicus.org/articles/15/1577/2011
- Asfand, N. & Daukantienė, V. (2023) — Evaluation of the moisture management and air permeability of cotton/antistatic polyester knitted fabrics, Journal of Industrial Textiles 53. doi.org/10.1177/15280837231194369
- Akter, N. et al. (2024) — Effect of cotton-polyester composite yarn on the physico-mechanical and comfort properties of woven fabric, SPE Polymers. doi.org/10.1002/pls2.10141
Reference books:
- Morton, W.E. & Hearle, J.W.S. (2008) — Physical Properties of Textile Fibres, 4th ed., Woodhead Publishing — moisture regain, density, tenacity values for both fibers.
- Cook, J.G. (2001) — Handbook of Textile Fibres, Vol. II: Man-Made Fibres, Woodhead Publishing.
Brands and certifications:
- OEKO-TEX Standard 100 — oeko-tex.com
- GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) — global-standard.org
- Better Cotton (BCI) — bettercotton.org
- Supima Association (American Pima cotton trademark) — supima.com
- Textile Exchange — Global Recycled Standard (GRS), Recycled Claim Standard (RCS). textileexchange.org
- bluesign® — manufacturing-process standard for inputs and emissions. bluesign.com
- Lenzing AG (Austria) — TENCEL™ Lyocell, TENCEL™ Modal. lenzing.com
- Unifi — REPREVE® recycled polyester. unifi.com
For methodology on how the data above is selected, weighted, and verified across sources, see the methodology page.