Reducing laundering frequency to prolong the life of denim jeans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The use and disposal phase in a garment's life cycle is highly dependent on the choices made by the consumer. Maintenance procedures such as laundering and drying require energy and water use. Garment disposal increases waste in landfill sites, unless incinerated, which can take a toll on the environment through greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, encouraging consumers to launder less frequently and finding ways to extend the useful life of clothing are two ways of increasing sustainability within the clothing industry. Denim jeans are one of the most popular items of clothing worldwide. Changing habits such as reducing the frequency with which a person washes their denim jeans could have a positive impact on the environment through less water and energy use. However, environmental knowledge about what is detrimental to the environment may not necessarily lead to pro‐environmental behaviour. In denim jeans fibre loss results in thinning and loss in colour due to use. Laundering in particular can degrade clothing due to the abrasive forces applied to the surface of wet fibres. Therefore, this study highlights the effect that frequent laundering can have on the degradation of jeans with the aim to provide additional motivation to encourage change in consumers’ laundering habits. Consumers wore jeans for the equivalent of 60 days and either washed their jeans after approximately 2 days of wear or after approximately every 20 days of wear. The findings confirmed that frequent laundering reduced mass, increased colour loss, and reduced tensile strength in the warp direction of the fabric. Although washing is a major contributor to the degradation of jeans, the process of wearing denim jeans also naturally degrades the denim as the thigh region of the jeans showed greater colour loss and reduction in tensile strength than the shin region, which is typically less prone to abrasion through wear. The findings from this study provide compelling evidence to encourage consumers to reconsider their laundering habits in terms of wash frequency as both a means to behave in a more environmentally sustainable way, and to preserve their favourite garments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".