Content uploaded by Hasanuzzaman ..
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hasanuzzaman .. on Dec 04, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
DOI: 10.4018/IJISSS.2016100103
Copyright © 2016, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Volume 8 • Issue 4 • October-December 2016
Hasanuzzaman, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, India
Chandan Bhar, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, India
Continuous development and automation has improved the production of Indian textile industry. As a
result, more and more raw materials demands have adversely affect the environment. In this study the
effects of Indian textile industry on environment and human health are reviewed and concluded that
textile mechanical process mainly affects the environment of the workplace by the way of producing
heavy noise and cotton dust. While fiber formation and chemical processing has vast negative impact
on outside world that pollutes land, water, air and emits hazardous byproduct which indirectly promotes
acid rain and global warming.
Chemical Processing of Textiles, Environmental Pollution, Fabric Formation, Fiber Production, Sustainability,
Yarn Formation
The textile industry, as a part of manufacturing sector has been one of the important sectors to
contribute towards country’s economy. It contributes 14% to the industrial production, 3% to the
gross domestic production, 8% to the total excise revenue collection, 17% to the country’s export
earnings and most importantly it provides direct employment to over 35 million people in India (The
Manufacturing Plan, 2015; Textile and Jute Industry, 2015). Today textile industry has been globalized
and to sustain in the global market overall growth of the Indian textile sector becomes factor of utmost
importance. However, the growth should not be in the expense of environmental degradation. The
environmental sustainability will need to be factored into India’s textile manufacturing growth plans.
The growth of textile sectors is enabled and facilitated by increasing use of material leading to
manifold impacts on the environment (The Manufacturing Plan, 2015). The environmental degradation
by way of pollution of land, air, and water occurs during the procurement and use of natural resources,
industrial processes and activities, and the product use and disposal. So, the objective of this study
is to investigate the impact of Indian textile industry on the environment and human health. In the
present study, an extensive review of literature has been carried out to find out the environment and
health impact of Indian textile industry.
In textile industry, fibers used are mainly of two types i.e. natural and manmade. Natural fibers are
cultivated naturally and manmade fiber, marketed as synthetic fiber, are regenerated from natural
resources or produced from chemicals.
33
Volume 8 • Issue 4 • October-December 2016
34
The cotton fiber which has the largest share in Indian textile industry is considered to be renewable,
biodegradable and environment friendly and has significant advantage throughout its life cycle
(About Cotton Sustainability, 2015; Myers & Stolton, 1999). But the cultivation of natural fibre
stresses heavy consumption of fertilizer, pesticide and fungicide. The study has revealed that cotton
cultivation consumes only 3% of world’s farmland but uses about 25% of the total world’s pesticide
(Yates, 1994; Lee, 2014; Ballikar, 2013; bex, 2012; Textiles, Leathers and the Environment, 2015;
Cotton and the Environment, 2015; Kumar, 2015). Further, to prevent stain on cotton fiber, several
deadly chemicals like defoliants have been used to the cotton plant before harvesting to remove the
leaves from the plant (Saunders & Grayson, 1984). Previous study found that roughly 65% of the
chemicals were insecticides, 20% were herbicides and 14% were defoliants and growth regulators,
while fungicides and others comprise only 1% of the total toxic chemical (Kumar, 2015). Same study
concludes that amount of cotton fiber required for making a T-shirt and a pair of jeans consumes over
0.5 kg of toxic chemical. The water required for irrigation during cotton cultivation exceeds profusely
for same amount of synthetic fiber production (Bex, 2012). This presents that cotton cultivation
destroys natural resources by intoxicating water and exhorting toxic chemicals in the environments
that unconditionally deduce cotton firming as the dirtiest and environment unfriendly cropping in the
world (Yates, 1994; Lee, 2014; Ballikar, 2013; bex, 2012; Textiles, Leathers and the Environment,
2015; Cotton and the Environment, 2015; Kumar, 2015).
Environmental and Health Effect
Application of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and other chemicals in the cotton fiber cultivation leads
to emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) higher than polyester fiber production
(Rana, Pichandi, Parveen & Fangueiro, 2014). It is well known that carbon dioxide is the primary
greenhouse gas and responsible for global warming whereas sulfur dioxide is the major precursor of
acid rain which acidifies soil, water and air. Again oil extracted from cotton seeds often used in daily
house-hold cooking contain chemicals that is some far from benign (Imhoff, 1999) and poisons over
25 million people every year, creating severe health problems (Kumar, 2015; Myers & Stolton, 1999).
Remedies
Recently efforts have been made to find substitutes for conventional cotton cultivation for avoiding
the use of precarious chemicals. Nonconventional cotton, marketed as naturally colored cotton, green
cotton and organic cotton, which is grown without use of heavy water, fertilizers, pesticides and other
chemicals, may be the substitute for conventional cotton. Further processing of these fibers would
demand less or no chemicals for dyeing and finishing (Robbins, 1994; Page, 1999; Kadolph, 2007).
Transgenic cotton (modern technology generated cotton), which is less prone to any insect and fungal
attack, may be another option for environment friendly production of cotton (Myers & Stolton, 1999).
Nylon and polyester, mostly used textile fiber after cotton in India, synthesized from polyester
byproduct (Lewin & Pearce, 1998). There is a common perception that they are hazardous to the
earth as well as the human life although none of them contains any unsafe compound however, their
production leads to release nitrous oxide including acidic gases such as hydrogen chloride (Hannah,
2011; Sabita & Tripathi, 2014; Textile World News, 1991; Science News, 1991). In a study, conducted
by Science News (1991), it was proved that annual increment of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere was
0.2% and one tenth of 0.2% comes from mass production of nylon and polyesters. This amount was
very large because the atmospheric lifetime of nitrous oxide is 150 years.
Volume 8 • Issue 4 • October-December 2016
35
Environmental and Health Effect
The byproduct nitrous oxide, generated during synthetic fiber production, is the powerful greenhouse
gas and has 300 times more potentiality than carbon dioxide for the destruction of stratospheric ozone
layer (Hannah, 2011; St. Rosemary, 2015; Textile World News, 1991; Science News, 1991). On the
other hand, fume or dust generated during thermal processing of nylon or polyester causes many
health problems like irritation of mucous membranes in the nose and throat, mechanical irritation
of the eye, irritation of the skin, and if one inhales he may experience gastrointestinal discomfort
(Malloy and Grubb, 2008). Carrier used during polyester dyeing may cause allergic contact dermatitis
(Hatch, 1984, Lewin & Pearce, 1998).
Remedies
If the nitrous oxide byproduct is stored and used, it may reduce the huge environmental burden.
Recycling of synthetic fibers is another way to reduce the emission of nitrous oxide that also helps
in reduction of global warming (Kadolph, 2007).
Ginning, interface between firming and industry, is the primary process step for the cotton fiber
processing which is engaged in separation of fibers from the cotton balls. The process needs high
speed machines that generate high noise and cotton dust in the workroom (Safety and Health of
Laborers in Cotton Ginning Industries in Gujarat, 2015) and principal noise source is high speed
doffing brush that generates noise with frequency of 500-1000 cycles/sec which is very high compared
to the standard noise frequency 31.5 - 250 cycles/sec (Laird and Baker, 1982; Anthony & Mayfield,
1995). Different bodies have defined the permissible noise limit for 8 hours or more working in
engineering and administrative department, which is given in Table 1 and Table 2. It was found in
a study on Maharashtra based ginning industry that workers were exposed to 89 to 106 dBA noise
on daily basis for 8 hours or more (Dube, Ingale & Ingale, 2011; Khatik, Shinde & Thakare, 2013).
Another study found that noise in gin press house lies in between 79.3 to 93.5 dBA and in ginning
house it was 96.0 dBA (Anthony & McCaskill, 1978). Similar kind of result was also found in study
conducted by Talukdar (2001) on Indian ginning industry as presented in Table 3.
Fiber fragmentation occurs in the ginning machine due to the high speed beating of fiber by
the ginning roller and results in generation of micro and fine dust in the ginning room. This dust is
the mixture of technical dust (i.e. bits of fiber and fragments from fiber surfaces) and organic and
inorganic natural dust. A study reveals that 40% of micro and fine dust is free between fibers and
flocks, 20-30% is loosely bound and the remaining 20-30% is firmly bound to the fibers (Kane, 2001).
During processing the dust mixture is set free. These free dusts contribute to increase the density of
dust in workroom. The cotton dust density in the ginning room remains in the range of 2000 to 6000
µg/m3, which is very high compared to the permissible limit, defined by Occupational Safety and
Health Act (OSHA) in 1970. The permissible limit, suggested by Occupational Safety and Health
Act (OSHA) is given in Table 4. Due to exposure to the environment for 8-12 hours on daily basis,
workers are suffering from several respiratory diseases (Dube et.al. 2011).
Environmental and Health Effect
The ginning workers exposed to high noise for 8-12 hours on daily basis that results noise induced
hearing loss of the workers (NIHL) (Dube et.al. 2011; Bedi, 2006). It was found in different studies
that workers exposed to noise exceeding 85 dBA suffers from NIHL (Sataloff & Sataloff, 2006; Patel
& Ingle, 2008; Arude, 2007). The high noise affects the overall efficiency, safety, and temporarily or
permanently hearing ability of the worker (Anthony and Baker, 1994).
Volume 8 • Issue 4 • October-December 2016
36
Due to exposure to the high cotton dust in the work room, ginning worker suffers from respiratory
impairment and occupational lungs disorder that includes byssinosis, chronic bronchitis and
occupational asthma (Dube, Ingale & Ingle, 2012; Woldeyohannes, Bergevin, Mgeni & Theriault,
1991; Jannet & Jeyanthi, 2006; Bünger, Schappler-Scheele, Hilgers & Hallier, 2007). A survey on
ginning workers point out that depending on the exposure, 51%–71% of cotton-ginning workers suffer
from the chest tightness, 55%–62% experience the chest pain, while 33%–42% of the workers report
the frequent cough (Dube et al., 2012). Moreover longer exposure causes the worker to suffer from
higher values of erythrocyte sedimentation rate, eosinophil’s, and white blood cells. (Dube et al., 2012).
Spinning, the process of yarn formation from raw fiber, also uses different types of machines. High
speed running of these machines results unavoidable noise and cotton dust in the workroom and it
was found that noise in spinning room remains in between 80 to 100 dBA. The noise generated in
different machine of spinning industry is given in Table 3, which consistently exceeds the permissible
limit for 2-8 hours working in engineering and administrative department as specified in Table 1
and Table 2 (Bedi 2006; Talukdar, 2001; Bhatt, Subrahmanyam & Swami, 1990). Study on Bombay
based spinning industry establishes that noise in spinning room remains around 96.5 dBA. (Kane,
Table 1. Permissible noise exposure limit for industrial workers
Exposure Time (in hours) Limit in <dB(A)
8 90
4 93
2 96
1 99
½ 102
1/8 108
1/16 111
1/32 (2 minutes) or less 114
Source: The noise pollution (Regulation and Control) rules, 2000
Table 2. Permissible noise exposure limit
Duration per day (hrs) OSHA 1910.95 (dBA)
8 90
6 92
4 95
3 97
2 100
1 ½ 102
1 105
½ 110
<1/4 115
Source: Jayawardana, Perera & Wijesena, 2014
Volume 8 • Issue 4 • October-December 2016
37
2001). Further, different studies have confirmed that more than 30% of spinning workers are exposed
daily to the noise level exceeding 90 dBA (Yhdego, 1991; Picard, Girard, Simard, Larocque, Leroux
& Turcotte, 2008).
Cotton dust is an unavoidable problem produced during spinning operation like noise. Blow
room, carding and combing section of spinning mills. The actual density of cotton dirt and dust in
spinning room relied on 1900 to 2700 µg/m3 as mentioned in Table 4. It can be seen from Table 4
that cotton dust density in spinning room is 10 to 14 times higher compared to the permissible limit.
Environmental and Health Effect
Noise exceeding 90 dBA has deleterious effect on the health and psychological wellbeing of the
workers. It was found that workers exposed to noise beyond 90 dBA suffer from serious hearing
impairment (Chavalitsakulchai, Kawakami, Kongmuang, Vivatjestsadawut & Leongsrisook, 1989).
The degree of damage in hearing capacity depends on the duration of works i.e. workers working
more than 16 years may experience hearing loss even at low frequency where as there is very less or
no effect on the office worker. Office worker may experience hearing impairment after more than 10
years of working at high frequency found in a study at Boroujerd Textile Factory (Roozbahani, Nassiri
& Shalkouhi, 2009). High noise adversely affect job performance of worker along with suffering from
Table 3. Noise level in textile industry
Section Noise level, dBA
Ginning 88-92
Blowroom 80-83
Carding 84-89
Draw frames 84-88
Speed frames 82-86
Ring frame 86-90
Rotor 85-100
Winding 82-86
Warping 80-86
Sizing 73-86
Loom shed (No-auto) 94-99
Loom shed (Auto) 95-97
Shuttle loom 99-104
Source; Talukdar, 2001
Table 4. Standard exposure limit with actual level of cotton dust in textile industry
Defined body Exposure limit Actual level µg/m3
Processing stage Standard Limit µg/m3
OSHA PEL TWA Yarn Manufacturing 200 1900-2700
Weaving 750 1820-1960
Ginning and waste recycling 1000 2000-6000
Source: Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Cotton Dust, 1988
Volume 8 • Issue 4 • October-December 2016
38
agitation, constant weariness, disorientation, headaches, vertigo, hypertension, cardiac arrhythmia, and
the other nervous and psychic disorders (Giardino and Durkt, 1996; Van Kempen, Kruize, Boshuizen,
Ameling, Staatsen & de Hollander, 2002; Öhrström, Björkman & Rylander, 1979).
Conversely high density of cotton dust in the workroom causes the worker to suffer from
respiratory impairment and occupational lungs disorder that includes byssinosis, chronic bronchitis
and occupational asthma (Dube et al., 2012; Woldeyohannes et al., 1991; Jannet et al., 2006; Bünger
et al., 2007).
Weaving, process of fabric formation, is the noisiest industry amongst all textile industries. The
source of noise in weaving industry is due to the outdated machinery, poor design, and construction
and crowding in the workplace (Bedi, 2006). It was found that noise in weaving preparatory section
is low whereas it is very high in front of loom shed (Talukdar, 2001). Actual noise generated by
the weaving looms was in the range of 85 to 104 dBA, of which highest in case of shuttle loom and
lowest in case of air jet loom, which is specified in Table 3 (Talukdar, 2001). Study on northern India
based weaving industry establishes the fact that noise level remains in the range of 101.3-102.1 dBA
(Bedi 2006) which confirmed that noise in weaving room terrifically exceeds the permissible limit
as mentioned in Table 1 and Table 2, for 8 hours working. Similar kind of result were observed in
studies on weaving industries of different countries like Karachi it was 88.4 to 104 dBA (Ashraf,
Younus, Kumar, Siddiqui, Ali & Siddiqui, 2009), in Kenya based Rivatex Industry it was 99-101dBA
(Gitau, Mwikali, Batt & Njau, 1998), in Thailand based weaving industry it was 101.3 +/- 2.7dB
(Chavalitsakulchai et al., 1989) and in Tanzania it was 92dBA - 103.8dBA (Jayaraynum, 1991).
The weaving industry similarly suffers from the unavoidable cotton dust like ginning and spinning.
The density of cotton dust in the weaving industry remains in the range of 1820 to 1960 µg/m3 as
given in Table 4 which incredibly exceeds the permissible limit.
It is an established fact that noise exceeding 80 dBA causes physiological damage of the workers. In
weaving industry worker works in a noisy environment of 85 to 104 dBA repeatedly, which push the
worker to suffer from permanent hearing loss in addition to the loss in efficiency (Talukdar, 2001).
Cotton dust in weaving industry similarly affects the workers like ginning and spinning.
Like ginning and spinning it is equally responsible for several health hazards of the workers for
instance nasopharyngel cancer (NPC), byssinosis, cough and bronchial asthma (Anonymous, 1995;
Anonymous, 2006, Anjum, Mann, & Anjum, 2009). Further, the low light condition in weaving room
makes the worker to suffer from eyesight problems (AIM, 1991).
Irrespective of being in the age of automation Indian textile industry still uses old and out dated
machineries and equipment except limited number of spinning industries that causes several problems
in the workroom. Upgradation of the industries with the modern equipment and machineries may
help to reduce these problems in the ginning spinning and weaving departments.
In contrast, ineffective control of humidity in the workroom generates high cotton dust. So,
effective control of humidity might help to reduce the density of cotton dust in the workroom.
The worker must also be aware of the health impact pertaining to cotton dust and should encourage
them to use safety devices while at work room.
Volume 8 • Issue 4 • October-December 2016
39
Chemical processing of textiles include dyeing, printing and finishing process. As the name indicates
a number of toxic chemicals are used to make these processes efficient which includes dye, acid,
alkali, detergents (such as salt, acid, alkali, bleaching, and finishing agents) and softeners etc. The list
of general chemicals used in the chemical processing of textiles is given in Table 6. The unutilized
chemicals with huge water discharged as effluent is the main source of hazards created from the
process. An estimation of water consumption and corresponding effluent generation is given in
Table 5. The chemicals in effluent includes unutilized dyes, acid, soap, detergent, enzyme, dye fixing
agent, chlorinated stain removers, chromium compound, heavy metals and some auxiliary chemicals,
that make it toxic (Kant, 2011). It was found that about 20% of effluent holds unfixed dyes and
auxiliaries (Kalliala & Talvenmaa, 2000; Hasanbeigi, 2013; Babu, Parande & Raghu, 2007). The
estimated percentage of unfixed dyes in effluent is given in Table 7. The major pollution indicating
parameters in effluent are chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
total dissolved solids (TDS), suspended solids (SS), pH, color, presence of heavy metal etc. (Ntuli,
Omoregbe, Kuipa, Muzenda & Belaid, 2009; Patel, Rajor, Jain & Patel, 2013; Imtiazuddin, Mumtaz
& Mallick, 2012; EPA, 1974; Das et al, 2000) and the nature of effluent released from textile plant
is presented in Table 8. Impurities such as oils, fats, waxes, seed particles, spinning oils, amines
generated from reduction of dyes, natural starch etc. contribute in proliferating pollution indicating
parameters in effluent and make it detrimental to the environment (Das, 2000; Babu et al, 2007;
Malik, 2002; Wynne, Maharaj & Buckley, 2001; AEPA, 1998). The physic-chemical characteristic
of effluent provided by Environmental Technology Best Practice Program UK (ETBPP, 1997) is
given in Table 9. It was found that textile chemical processing industry at Pali, Rajasthan discharged
effluent to River Bandi that causes environmental pollution surrounding the river (Rathore, 2012).
In the same way Finland based chemical processing industries released effluent to municipal sewage
treatment plants and increase pollution indicating parameter like BOD and COD due to presence of
natural starches in the effluent (Kalliala & Talvenmaa, 2000).
Moreover, chemical processing of textiles is highly responsible for surrounding air pollution
due to evaporation of effluent. Evaporation rate depends on the surrounding temperature and it was
verified that high temperature around Bandi River of Rajasthan could increase the potential of the
discharged effluents from the textile mills to pollute air in the environment (Jauregui & Luyando,
1999; Rathore, 2012). Similar results found around Kaduna River of Nigeria that during long dry
season the evaporation from discharged effluent terrifically causes surrounding air pollution (Kaduna,
2004). Again high temperature causes air pollution promoting emission from effluent like ammonia,
sulfides and induces volatilities of oil and grease by adding organic compound in the air (EPA, 2001).
Instead, use of fossil fuel in boiler leads to carbon di-oxide and sulfur di oxide emission (Kalliala
& Talvenmaa, 2000), application of stain remover on fabric causes carbon tetra chloride emission
and use of sodium hypochlorite (bleaching agent) leads to chlorine gas emission in air (Das, 2000).
The toxic effluent, if released to the environment, might cause the destruction of earth’s natural beauty
by polluting land, water and air (ETBPP, 1997). This also causes heavy disease burden to human and
shorten their life expectancy (Yusuff & Sonibare, 2004). Moreover, it makes the water detrimental for
biotic and aquatic life by increasing the BOD and COD (Patel et al., 2013; Imtiazuddin et al., 2012).
On the other hand, emissions of carbon tetra chloride, carbon dioxide destroy the stratospheric ozone
layer and stimulate global warming (Das, 2000).
The toxic effluent must be neutralized before releasing to the environment. The neutralization can
be carried out through physical, chemical and biological treatments. The best method to be one that
is involving several steps like bio-sorption using locally available agricultural waste followed by
Volume 8 • Issue 4 • October-December 2016
40
biological treatment with microorganisms like fungi and bacteria (Padhi, 2012). Further, tricking bed
reactor is the method that reduces the BOD level from 600 to 100 mg/l (Palamthodi, Patil & Patil,
2013). The emission of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide can be controlled using natural gas in boiler
(Kalliala & Talvenmaa, 2000) and sodium hypochlorite may ban to control chlorine gas emission.
Table 6. Different chemicals used in textile chemicals processing
Type Example
Acid Acetic acid, Formic acid
Alkali Sodium Hydroxide, Potassium Hydroxide, Sodium Carbonate
Bleach Hydrogen Peroxide, Sodium Hypochlorite, Sodium Chlorite
Dyes Reactive, Direct, Disperse, Pigment, Vat
Salt Sodium Chlorite
Size Starch, PVA
Stabilizer Sodium Silicate, Sodium Nitrate, Organic Stabilizers
Surfactant Detergents
Auxiliary finishes Fire Retardant, Softener
Table 5. Water Consumption and Effluent Generation in Different Wet Processing Stages in Textile Industries (L/100kg)
Activities Water consumption Effluent
Variation Average Variation
Sizing/slashing 50-820 435 50-80
Desizing 250-2100 1175 250-2100
Bleaching
e. Yarn (hypochlorite) 2400-4800 3600 2250-4600
f. Yarn (H2O2) 2400-3200 2800 2250-3050
g. Cloth (hypochlorite) 4000-4800 4400 3800-4600
h. Cloth (H2O2) 1700-3200 2450 1700-3200
Mercerizing 3600-17000 10600 3500-17500
Dyeing
g. Yarn (light & medium shade) 3600-4800 4200 3500-4700
h. Yarn (dark shade) 4800-6400 5600 4700-6300
i. Yarn (very dark shade) 6600-8800 7700 6500-8700
j. Cloth (light and medium shade) 7800-9600 8700 7700-9500
k. Cloth (dark shade) 10400-12800 11600 10300-12700
l. Cloth (very dark shade) 14300-17600 15950 14200-17500
Source: Garrett, Shorofsky & Radcliffe; Das, 2000
Volume 8 • Issue 4 • October-December 2016
41
Regardless of being in the age of automation, Indian textile industries still practices old and outdated
technologies, machineries and equipment. To make the textile industries competitive with current
automated era, Government of India approved several schemes like National Textile Policy (NTP)
2000 to enable the textile industry to attain and sustain a pre-eminent global standing in manufacture
and export of clothing, Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme to facilitate the installation of state-of-
the-art or near state-of-the-art machinery at competitive capital cost, Technology Mission on Cotton
2000 helps to increase cotton production and to reduce contamination levels, Scheme for Integrated
Processing Development (IPD) has been introduced to address the environmental concerns relating to
effluent treatment, Further, rationalization of Fiscal Duties and Common Effluent Treatment Plants
with Marine Outfall (CETPMO) provides a level playing field to all segments.
Table 7. Percentage of unfixed dyes
Fiber type Dye type Unfixed dyes
Wool and nylon Acid dyes, reactive dyes for wool 7-20%
Premetalised dyes 2-7
After chromes 1-2
Cotton and viscose Azoic dyes 5-10
Reactive dyes 20-50
Direct dyes 5-20
Pigment 1
Vat dyes 5-20
Sulphur dyes 30-40
Polyester Disperse 8-20
Acrylic Modified basic 2-3
Polypropylene Spun dyed N/A
Source: ETBPP, 1997
Table 8. Effluent characteristics of textile plant
Process Effluent composition Nature
Sizing Starch, waxes, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), polyvinyl
alcohol (PVA), wetting agents.
High in BOD, COD
Desizing Starch, CMC, PVA, fats, waxes, pectins High in BOD, COD, SS, dissolved
solids (DS)
Bleaching Sodium hypochlorite, Cl2, NaOH, H2O2, acids, surfactants,
NaSiO3, sodium phosphate, short cotton fibre.
High alkalinity, high SS
Mercerizing Sodium hydroxide, cotton wax High pH, low BOD, high DS
Dyeing Dyestuffs urea, reducing agents, oxidizing agents, acetic acid,
detergents, wetting agents.
Strongly coloured, high BOD, DS,
low SS, heavy metals
Printing Pastes, urea, starches, gums, oils, binders, acids, thickeners,
cross-linkers, reducing agents, alkali.
Highly coloured, high BOD, oily
appearance, SS slightly alkaline,
low BOD
Source: Yusuff & Sonibare, 2004; Patel et al., 2013
Volume 8 • Issue 4 • October-December 2016
42
Development and automation of Indian textile industry makes it competitive in global market but
has detrimental effect on environment and human life. Automation and modernization increased the
speed of production that results in consuming more and more resources and consequently pollutes
the environment. Such as fiber production leads to emission of gases those are accused of global
warming (viz. CO2 and NO2) as well as acid rain (SO2 and NOx). While chemical processing of textile
produces toxic effluent along with gaseous emissions that pollute land, water, air and leads to severe
health hazards. On the other hand, mechanical processing of textile forces the worker to work in
the noisiest environment that remains full of dirt and dust makes the workers to suffer from several
diseases (viz. hearing and respiratory impairment, occupational lungs disorder etc).
Although the effect of textile mechanical processing is limited to the work room, fiber formation
and chemical processing has vast negative impact on outside world that pollutes land, water, air and
emits hazardous byproduct which indirectly promotes acid rain and global warming.
Table 9. Physic-chemical characteristics of effluent
Determined Woven fabric
finishing
Knit fabric
finishing
Stock and yarn dyeing and
finishing
BOD (Biological oxygen demand) (mg/litre) 550-650 250-350 200-250
Suspended solids (mg/litre) 185-300 300 50-75
COD (Chemical oxygen demand) (mg/litre) 850-1200 850-1000 524-800
Sulphide (mg/litre) 3 0.2 0-0.09
Colour (ADMI* unit) 325 400 600
pH 7-11 6-9 7-12
(Source: Hasanbeigi, 2013)
*American dye manufacturers institute
Volume 8 • Issue 4 • October-December 2016
43
About cotton sustainability: Cotton vs. other fibers. (n. d.). Cotton Today. Retrieved from http://cottontoday.
cottoninc.com/sustainability-about/cotton-vs-other-fibers/
AEPA. (Australian environmental protection authority) (1998). Environmental guidelines for the textile dyeing
and finishing industry. State government of Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
AIM. (Identity, Merge and Action NGO). (1991). Training program for carpet weaving girls. Retrieved from
http://www.aimngo.org
Anjum, A., Mann, A. A., & Anjum, M. A. (2009). Health concerns among workers in weaving industry: A case
study of tehsil Faisalabad, Pakistan. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 5(3), 106–108.
Anonymous, . (1995). Byssinosis in a Bombay textile mill. The National Medical Journal of India, 8, 204–207.
PMID:7549849
Anonymous, . (2006). The enigmatic epidemiology of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiology,
Biomarkers & Prevention, 15(10), 1765–1777. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0353 PMID:17035381
Anthony, W. S., & Baker, R.V. (1994). Noise in cotton gins. Cotton ginners’ handbook Agricultural Research
Handbook USDA No. 503 (pp. 297-286).
Anthony, W. S., & Mayfield, W. D. (1995). Cotton ginners handbook. DIANE Publishing No. 503.
Anthony, W. S., & McCaskill, O. L.W. Stanley Anthony; Oliver L. McCaskill. (1978). Low-noise versus standard
brush cylinders for gin machinery. Transactions of the ASAE. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 21(6),
1045–1050. doi:10.13031/2013.35438
Arude, V. G. (2007). Noise levels in Indian cotton gins. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia Africa and Latin
America, 38(2), 9.
Ashraf, H. D., Younus, M., Kumar, P., Siddiqui, T., Ali, S., & Siddiqui, M. I. (2009). Frequency of hearing
loss among textile industry workers of weaving unit in Karachi, Pakistan. JPMA. The Journal of the Pakistan
Medical Association, 59, 575–576. PMID:19757712
Babu, B. R., Parande, A., & Raghu, S. (2007). Cotton textile processing: Waste generation and effluent treatment.
Journal of Cotton Science, 11, 141–153.
Ballikar, V. (2013, February 13). Textile industry and environmental issues. Retrieved from http://www.
fibre2fashion.com/industry-article/46/4582/textile-industry-and-environmental-issues1.asp
Bedi, R. (2006). Evaluation of occupational environment in two textile plants in northern India with specific
reference to noise. Industrial Health, 44(1), 112–116. doi:10.2486/indhealth.44.112 PMID:16610545
Bex. (2012, April 30). What are sustainable fibres? Retrieved from http://www.fashionmegreen.com/what-are-
sustainable-fibres/
Bhatt, S. R., Subrahmanyam, K., & Swami, K. R. (1990). Noise pollution in textile industry: a review. Report
by ATIRA, Ahmedabad.
Bünger, J., Schappler-Scheele, B., Hilgers, R., & Hallier, E. (2007). A 5-year follow-up study on respiratory
disorders and lung function in workers exposed to organic dust from composting plants. International Archives
of Occupational and Environmental Health, 80(4), 306–312. doi:10.1007/s00420-006-0135-2 PMID:16897096
Chavalitsakulchai, P., Kawakami, T., Kongmuang, U., Vivatjestsadawut, P., & Leongsrisook, W. (1989).
Noise exposure and permanent hearing loss of textile workers in Thailand. Industrial Health, 27(4), 165–173.
doi:10.2486/indhealth.27.165 PMID:2613560
Chemical use in the Textile Dyeing and Finishing Industry. (1997). ETBPP (Environmental Technology Best
Practice Programme).
Cotton and the environment. (n. d.). Retrieved from http://www.organicitsworthit.org/get/cotton-and-environment
Volume 8 • Issue 4 • October-December 2016
44
Das, S. (2000). Senior Manager - Technical, Some issues of ecological hazards in textile industry, Global Brands
Li & Fung (pp. 1–10). India: Private Limited.
Dube, K. J., Ingale, L. T., & Ingale, S. T. (2011). Hearing impairment among workers exposed to excessive levels
of noise in ginning industries. Noise & Health, 13(54), 348. doi:10.4103/1463-1741.85506 PMID:21959115
Dube, K. J., Ingale, L. T., & Ingle, S. T. (2012). Respiratory impairment in cotton-ginning workers exposed to
cotton dust. International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics. JOSE, 19(4), 551–560. PMID:24321634
EPA. (1974). Wastewater-treatment systems: upgrading textile operations to reduce pollution. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA.
EPA. (2001, August 13). Integrated risk information system (IRIS). National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington DC, USA. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/
iris/recent_2001.htm
Garrett, B., Shorofsky, B., & Radcliffe, R. (n. d.). Evaluation of textile treatment and treatment alternatives for
the village of Jasol in Rajasthan, India. A Collaboration of the Jal Bhagirathi Foundation and the Northwestern
University Global and Ecological Health Engineering Certificate Program. Retrieved from http://www.civil.
northwestern.edu/EHE/HTML_KAG/Kimweb/files/FINAL%20Report%20for%20JBF.pdf
Giardino, D. A., & Durkt, G. (1996). Evaluation of muff-type hearing protectors as used in a working environment.
American Industrial Hygiene Association, 57(3), 264–271. doi:10.1080/15428119691014990 PMID:8776197
Gitau, J. M., Mwikali, J. M., Batt, K. W., & Njau, Z. G. (1998). Study report: Noise induced hearing loss among
textile industry workers in Eldoret, Kenya coves-IV. Faulty of Health Sciences, MOI University.
Hannah. (2011, February 8). Environmental impacts of fabric: Nylon. Retrieved from http://wearnothingnew.
typepad.com/wear-nothing-new/2011/02/environmental-impacts-of-fabric-nylon.html
Hasanbeigi, A. (2013, October). Alternative and emerging technologies for an energy-efficient, and low-pollution
textile industry. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1-47.
Hatch, K. L. (1984). Chemicals and textiles. Part 1: Dermatological problems related to fiber content and dyes.
Textile Research Journal, 54(10), 664–682. doi:10.1177/004051758405401005
Imhoff, D. (1999, May/June). King cotton. sierra, 34-35.
Imtiazuddin, S. M., Mumtaz, M., & Mallick, K. A. (2012). Pollutants of wastewater characteristics in textile
industries. Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8, 554–556.
Jannet, J. V., & Jeyanthi, G. P. (2006). Pulmonary health status of ginning factory women laborers in Tirupur, India.
Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 10(3), 116–120. doi:10.4103/0019-5278.29571
Jauregui, E., & Luyando, E. (1999). Global radiation attenuation by air pollution and its effects on the thermal
climate in Mexico City. International Journal of Climatology, 19(6), 683–694. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0088(199905)19:6<683::AID-JOC389>3.0.CO;2-8
Jayaraynum, J. (1991). Primary Health care approach in occupational health and safely. African Newsletter on
Occupational Health and Safety, 1, 72–75.
Jayawardana, T. S. S., Perera, M. Y. A., & Wijesena, G. H. D. (2014). Analysis and control of noise in a textile
factory. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 4(12), 1–7.
Kadolph, S. J. (2007). Textiles (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kaduna State. (2004). The official website of Kaduna state, Nigeria. Retrieved from www.kaduna-state.com
Kalliala, E., & Talvenmaa, P. (2000). Environmental profile of textile wet processing in Finland. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 8(2), 143–154. doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(99)00313-3
Kane, C. D. (2001). Environmental and health hazards in spinning industry and their control. Indian Journal of
Fibre and Textile Research, 26(1/2), 39–43.
Kant, R. (2011). Textile dyeing industry an environmental hazard. Natural Science, 4(1), 22–26. doi:10.4236/
ns.2012.41004
Volume 8 • Issue 4 • October-December 2016
45
Khatik, V., Shinde, A., & Thakare, K. (2013). The Pioneer Study on Identification of Fire Hazards in Cotton
Ginning Industries of Nandurbar Region of Maharashtra. International Journal of Scientific Research, 2(10),
1–4. doi:10.15373/22778179/OCT2013/47
Kumar, R. S. (2015). Process Management in Spinning. CRC Press Tailor & Francis Group.
Laird, W., & Baker, R. V. (1982). Confirmation of sources of cotton gin noise by multivariate analysis techniques.
Transactions of the ASAE (American Society of Agricultural Engineers) USA, 25(4), 1050-1056.
Lee, J. (2014, February 25). The Latest in Sustainable Textiles. Retrieved from http://www.triplepundit.
com/2014/02/round-sustainable-textiles/
Lewin, M., & Pearce, E. M. (1998). Handbook of fiber chemistry (2nd ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Malik, A. (2002, October 2). Impact of environmental regulations on the textile sector of Pakistan. Expert
Meeting on Environmental Requirements and International Trade.
Malloy, T., & Grubb, M. (2008). MSDS – Nylon 6. Retrieved from http://skipper.physics.sunysb.edu/HBD/
MSDS/NylonMSDS.pdf
Myers, D., & Stolton, S. (1999). Organic cotton–a more sustainable approach. Organic cotton (pp. 1–7). London:
Intermediate Technology Publications.
Ntuli, F., Omoregbe, D. I., Kuipa, P. K., Muzenda, E., & Belaid, M. (2009, October). Characterization of effluent
from textile wet finishing operations.Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science
2009(Vol. 1).
Nylon: background, dangers, disposal. (n. d.). St. Rosemary Educational Institution. Retrieved from http://
schoolworkhelper.net/nylon-background-dangers-disposal/
Occupational safety and health guide line for cotton dust. (1988). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/
docs/81-123/pdfs/0152.pdf
Öhrström, E., Björkman, M., & Rylander, R. (1979). Subjective evaluation of work environment with special
reference to noise. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 65(2), 241–249. doi:10.1016/0022-460X(79)90517-0
Padhi, B. S. (2012). Pollution due to synthetic dyes toxicity & carcinogenicity studies and remediation.
International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 3(3), 940–955.
Palamthodi, S., Patil, D., & Patil, Y. (2013). Microbial degradation of textile industrial effluents. African Journal
of Biotechnology, 10(59), 12657–12661.
Patel, S., Rajor, A., Jain, B. P., & Patel, P. (2013). Performance evaluation of effluent treatment plant of textile
wet processing industry: A case study of narol textile cluster, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Performance Evaluation, 2(4).
Patel, V. S., & Ingle, S. T. (2008). Occupational noise exposure and hearing loss among pulse processing workers.
The Environmentalist, 28(4), 358–365. doi:10.1007/s10669-007-9148-y
Picard, M., Girard, S. A., Simard, M., Larocque, R., Leroux, T., & Turcotte, F. (2008). Association of work-
related accidents with noise exposure in the workplace and noise-induced hearing loss based on the experience of
some 240,000 person-years of observation. Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 40(5), 1644–1652. doi:10.1016/j.
aap.2008.05.013 PMID:18760091
Rana, S., Pichandi, S., Parveen, S., & Fangueiro, R. (2014). Natural plant fibers: Production, processing,
properties and their sustainability parameters. In Roadmap to Sustainable Textiles and Clothing (pp. 1–35).
Springer Singapore. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-065-0_1
Rathore, J. (2012). Studies on pollution load induced by dyeing and printing units in River Bandi at Pali, Rajasthan,
India. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 3(1), 735–742.
Robbins, J. (1994). Undying Devotion: The True Colors of Cotton. Destination Discovery, 18-21.
Roozbahani, M. M., Nassiri, P., & Shalkouhi, P. J. (2009). Risk assessment of workers exposed to noise pollution
in a textile plant. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 6(4), 591–596. doi:10.1007/
BF03326099
Volume 8 • Issue 4 • October-December 2016
46
Sabita, & Tripathi, J. S. (2014). A review on the impact of cloth dyes on health and its prevention. International
Journal of Advanced Research and Technology, 2(1), 9-11.
Safety and health of labourers in cotton ginning industries in Gujarat. (n. d.). Prayas centre for labour research
and action. Retrieved from http://prayaschittor.org/safetyhl.pdf
Sataloff, R. T., & Sataloff, J. (Eds.). (2006). Occupational hearing loss. CRC Press. doi:10.1201/9781420015478
Saunders, J. H., & Grayson, M. (1984). Encyclopedia of textiles, fibers, and nonwoven fabrics (p. 355). New
York: Wiley & Sons.
Science News. (1991, February 23). Nylon: Sheer havoc. (mass production of nylon may be a factor in global
warming). Retrieved from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-10426323.html
Talukdar, M. K. (2001). Noise pollution and its control in textile industry. Indian Journal of Fibre and Textile
Research, 26, 44–49.
Textile and jute industry, 12th five year plan. (n. d.). Govt. of India. Retrieved from http://planningcommission.
gov.in/aboutus/committee/wrkgrp12/wg_jute1101.pdf
Textile world news. (1991, April). Is making nylon bad for the environment? Textile World. Retrieved from
http://www.instyle.com.au/userfiles/file/-Leather/Leather and the Environment/Environmental-Impact-of-Fibres-
Print-Version-v2(1).pdf
The manufacturing plan: Strategies for accelerating growth of manufacturing in India, 12th five year plan. (n. d.).
Govt. of India. Retrieved from http://planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/committee/strgrp12/str_manu0304.pdf
The noise pollution (regulation and control) rules. (2000). Retrieved from http://admis.hp.nic.in/himpol/Citizen/
LawLib/C0187.htm
Van Kempen, E. E., Kruize, H., Boshuizen, H. C., Ameling, C. B., Staatsen, B. A., & de Hollander, A. E.
(2002). The association between noise exposure and blood pressure and ischemic heart disease: A meta-analysis.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(3), 307–317. doi:10.1289/ehp.02110307 PMID:11882483
Woldeyohannes, M., Bergevin, Y., Mgeni, A. Y., & Theriault, G. (1991). Respiratory problems among cotton
textile mill workers in Ethiopia. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 48(2), 110–115. PMID:1998605
Wynne, G., Maharaj, D., & Buckley, C. (2001). Cleaner production in the textile industry–Lessons from the
Danish experience (pp. 3–19). Durban, South Africa: School of Chemical Engineering, University of Natal.
Yates, D. (1994). Organic cotton. Green Alternatives, 4(1), 33–36.
Yhdego, M. (1991). Assessment of noise pollution in friendship textile mill limited, Ubongo—Dar es Salaam.
Environment International, 17(5), 479–485. doi:10.1016/0160-4120(91)90282-U
Yusuff, R. O., & Sonibare, J. A. (2004). Characterization of textile industries’ effluents in Kaduna, Nigeria and
pollution implications. Global Nest: the International Journal, 6(3), 212–221.
Hasanuzzaman is a JRF in the discipline of Industrial Engineering and Management at the Department of
Management Studies in Indian School of Mines Dhanbad, Jharkhand 826004, India. He has published an article in
an international journal published by Taylor and Francis, and has presented a paper at an international conference.
Chandan Bhar is a professor in the Department of Management Studies and Dean (Student Welfare) of Indian
School of Mines, Dhanbad, Jharkhand- 826004, India. He was head of the Department of Management Studies,
Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad from February 1, 2008 to January 9, 2012. He has more than 28 years of research
experience in Industrial Engineering and Management at Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad. He has guided 6
PhD Students and 9 are ongoing. He has published many articles in various international and national journals
published by renowned houses such as Taylor and Francis, Emerald, Inderscience, etc. He has also published 5
books to his credit in his research field. He has gained industry experience by serving as junior executive trainee
and under manager in the Coal India Limited prior to joining academics.
