Number

414-EN

Section

General Section

Use

Abstract

The phase-out of PFC containing durable water repellent finishes has been decided by Levi Strauss & Co. For the manufacture of water repellent textile products an alternative PFC free finish is used containing paraffin waxes and blocked isocyanates.

Alternative Substances

Reliability of information

Evidence of implementation: there is evidence that the solution was implemented and in use at time of publication

Reason substitution

ecotoxicity
other reasons

Hazard Assessment

None of the alternative chemicals are listed on the Substance Database according to SUBSPORTplus Screening Criteria (SDSC). According to the MSDS, the alternative product may produce an allergic reaction. It is free of PFC.                No details on the substituted products were known to SUBSPORTplus. » Check the Substance Database according to SUBSPORTplus Screening Criteria (SDSC)

Description of Substitution

This case story will show the steps Levi Strauss & Co.  (called below "company") took to eliminate short chain, C6, perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) from its Commuter™ line of denim and non-DEnim apparel. Commuter™ was successfully launched in Fall 2011 using osphere®, a C6 perfluorinated chemical formulation marketed by Schoeller® Tech, part of Schoeller® Textiles and manufactured by Archroma, previously known as Clariant [1].The initial Commuter™ line consisted of men’s denim and non-DEnim pants and jackets targeted for men commuting by bicycle, a growing global trend in the marketplace. The product consisted of denim and non-DEnim fabric, with performance attributes such as: stretch for mobility and comfort; design details targeted for cyclists; an antimicrobial for odor management; and a durable water repellent (DWR) to provide protection from rain.Sourcing and developing the fabric with the desired attributes was carefully orchestrated by the company during the development phase of the work. It required strong technical knowledge to get the water repellent performance, while maintaining a product with the desired aesthetics.For denim, the osphere® chemistry was applied at the mill after the denim was desized and before garments were cut and sewn. The denim jean did not have any garment finishing to ensure the level of DWR performance was maximized for the consumer. For non-DEnim, the osphere® chemistry was also applied at the mill during the fabric finishing process in a similar manner.The company used the AATCC 22 water repellency spray test method to test for the performance on the finished fabric as well as garments. Standards were established based on the test results and the expected performance of the products.The Case Study Method

1. Identify the chemical of concern. The company describes the hazard, the function of the substance, and the current conditions to make it work at the desired performance level.
2. Set substitution criteria. Through company's Restricted Substances List (RSL) process, criteria to eliminate alternatives that are not safer have been set. The company also aligns with the regulatory and legal environment of the countries in which the company operates and sells.
3. Identify alternatives from chemical suppliers. The company engages with chemical suppliers in dialogue about chemical sustainability, hazard, risk and exposure, and work with them to find safer alternatives for chemicals of concern.
4. Assess and compare alternatives. The company asks chemical supplier to share what hazard assessment methodology and tool they use to identify safer substitutions.
5. Pilot substitution for performance. The company evaluates the chemical through company's processes to ensure the performance meets consumer expectations.
6. Encourage chemical supplier to post substitution case study. After third-party verification, the company encourages the chemical supplier or other organization to post a substitution case story on the SUBSPORTplus.

The ProblemThe company identified short-chain perfluorinated chemicals (C6) as a class of chemicals to eliminate from its products by December 31^st 2015. Following this decision, the company immediately began to search for a replacement for osphere®.  Currently, short-chain PFCs are not regulated, and do not have any harmonized classification according to Annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation) The evidence that long-chain PFCs, such as perfluorooctonoic acid (PFOA) and perfluoroocatnesulfonic acid (PFOS), are both hazardous to human health and the environment is well documented.The theory held by certain sectors in the science and NGO communicates is that the molecular structure between the short-chain and long-chain PFCs is so similar that short-chain PFCs also may be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic. It should be noted that there is much less available data on short-chain PFCs to demonstrate their hazardous nature. Consistent with the precautionary principle, the company made a decision to replace osphere® with PFC-free alternatives.Substitution CriteriaThe company has established a Restricted Substances List (RSL) that restricts the presence of hazardous chemicals on consumer products. It added long-chain PFCs, such as PFOA and PFOS, to the RSL in 2008. The company RSL meets, and in many cases exceeds, all global regulatory requirements.As the company began to search for safer alternatives, it was imperative that the alternative formulations not pose any risks to human health and the environment. Of specific concern was to make sure the alternative chemical was not a regrettable substitution, meaning that it could be just as hazardous as the chemical it was trying to replace.Chemicals that are persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic to the environment, and carcinogenic were particularly important hazard end-points because these are the hazardous attributes associated with long chain PFCs.The AlternativeThe company wanted to maintain its relationship with Schoeller® for several reasons; it is an innovative leader in performance chemistry for textile applications; its marketing strategy is a good fit for the Commuter™ series; and it is a leader in environmental health and safety in the textile industry.Schoeller® launched a PFC-free replacement technology called ecorepel® in 2013. It is based on long paraffin chains that wrap themselves around the cotton fibers. This reduces surface tension so that water is repelled off the fabric. The paraffin chains are bound to the fiber by a “docking system” that is cross-linked by blocked isocyanates.The following chemicals make up the ecorepel® system:

1. Schoeller® Protec-FF – A dispersion of paraffin oils and a fat modified melamine resin which is nonionic/cationic in nature. It is not classified as hazardous.
2. Schoeller® Impregnol 6900 – A dispersion containing oxime blocked polyisocyanate –It is not classified as hazardous.

The company uses the GreenScreen® method for Safer Chemicals as a way to assess and evaluate chemicals of concern. In the case of ecorepel®, a certified GreenScreen® profiler conducted a GreenScreen® assessment®. The resulting GreenScreen® assessments demonstrated that the active ingredient of ecorepel® was at least a Benchmark 2 ingredient [2]. This is an acceptable score and meets company’s criteria for choosing the best chemicals in their class.Assess and Compare AlternativesDuring the search for a new replacement for PFCs, the company worked very closely with Schoeller®, requesting the following from Schoeller®

1. Safety data sheets for all components of ecoreepel®.
2. Data generated by Schoeller® that demonstrated the replacement was not hazardous. (A REACH registration was determined to be acceptable.)
3. Registration through REACH and access to the REACH dossier.

The company product safety team reviewed the safety data sheets carefully to see if any regulated chemicals were included. In the case of both components, the chemical ingredients were not regulated and considered safe to use.The company also conducted a review of other alternatives to PFCs available in the marketplace. The technologies included the following:

1. Highly branched dendrimers and polymers
2. High molecular weight waxes
3. Organic silicon compounds

Experiment and PilotOnce company identified ecorepel® as a suitable replacement to osphere® from a health and safety perspective, the next step was to determine if it was acceptable based on cost and performance criteria.Two mills were targeted to run trials with ecorepel®. One was chosen to run denim trials due to its equipment capabilities and technical expertise. The other was chosen to run the non-DEnim substrate due to its familiarity with osphere® and expertise in applying performance chemicals to fabrics.The application method was similar to osphere® except that ecorepel® was applied in two steps: the paraffin wax and the dosing system.Three attributes were evaluated during the pilot phase: cost, performance/quality, and aesthetics, specifically as it related to the feel and drape of the garment.CostThe cost of the chemicals, the amount needed to get the desired performance, and the application method was similar, but not identical to osphere®. Once a cost analysis was performed, it was concluded that the cost differential between the osphere® and ecorepel® was negligible.Performance/QualityThe original company spray rating standard for DWR performance on denim based on the AATCC 22 method was 80 “as delivered” and 70 after 10 home launderings. Both osphere® and ecorepel® were able to meet these performance standards.AestheticsThere was no difference in hand between garments treated with osphere® and ecorepel®.Implement and ImproveThe company successfully transitioned from osphere® and replaced it with ecorepel® from Schoeller® Chemicals.Commuter™ jeans treated with ecorepel® were available in the marketplace as part of the Spring 2015 delivery season.ConclusionThe company successfully transitioned away from short chain PFCs to similar performance using PFC-free technology. It successfully applied the six steps to finding safer alternatives to chemicals of concern.In addition, company established an internal process to ensure products that require DWR performance are identified at the onset of development, and only non-PFC related chemicals are used.The company works diligently with its chemical suppliers and manufacturers to focus on safer alternatives to chemicals of concern. It conducts technical workshops with major chemical suppliers twice a year and has established a method to assess and evaluate chemicals based on their hazard. The company is committed to the development of safer alternatives used within the supply chain.AddendumSince the company prohibited short- and long-chain perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) and launched this program, the company has not been able to achieve the same performance standards in using other PFC free technologies as  achieved  using Schoeller® ecorepel®.For production targeted for season Fall/Winter 2016, the brand was required to reduce performance standards for water repellency when using non-Schoeller chemistry due to the lower and more inconsistent performance of the non-Schoeller technologies. In addition, the brand had to cancel orders, reduced order volumes and is managing fabric inventory that does not meet the desired performance standards. There is also risk to the brand that stems from shipping products with reduced performance attributes to retail.The product development teams at the company continue to research all PFC free alternatives to improve the current situation and improve product performance. A comprehensive review of PFC free chemistries will be conducted in Spring/Summer 2016 to impact decisions made for products that will be sold during the Spring/Summer 2017 season.[1] Schoeller’s osphere® technology is considered a state of the art, bluesign® approved C6 chemistry[2] LS&Co. will not disclose any confidential information from their GreenScreen® assessment. Based on their criteria and evaluation of the Benchmark scores, the results from the assessment were acceptable.

Case/substitution evaluation

This case story from a user describes the substitution of a short-chain PFC (C6 fluorocarbon) containing textile finish with an alternative PFC free finish. The alternative substances were disclosed to SUBSPORTplus. None of these chemicals are listed on the SDSC. However, the alternative product may produce an allergic reaction (see MSDS).

State of implementation

In use

Date and place of implementation

Spring 2015, Global Distribution

Enterprise using the alternative

www.levistrauss.com

Availability ofAlternative

on the market

Producer/Provider

www.schoeller-textiles.com

Type of information supplier

Producer / distributor

Contact

www.levistrauss.com

Other solutions

1. Highly branched dendrimers and polymers
2. High molecular weight waxes
3. Organic silicon compounds

Further information

MSDS of the alternative part 1

MSDS of the alternative part 2

Date, reviewed

February 9, 2022