Accepted Manuscript

Energy consumption and energy saving potential in clothing industry

Ahmet Çay

PII: S0360-5442(18)31193-9

DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.128

Reference: EGY 13170

To appear in: Energy

Received Date: 21 March 2018

Accepted Date: 19 June 2018

Please cite this article as: Ahmet Çay, Energy consumption and energy saving potential in clothing
industry, Energy (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.128

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Energy consumption and energy saving potential in clothing industry

Ahmet Çay*

Department of Textile Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ege University, Bornova 35100,

İzmir, Turkey

ABSTRACT
Turkish clothing industry, being one of the biggest apparel suppliers of the world, plays a
major role in manufacturing sector of the country with the highest share in total exports.
Therefore analysis of the clothing sector in terms of energy consumption which is an
important component of its environmental impacts is of importance. Energy consumption of
the plants in the entire knitted garment production chain was aimed to be investigated in this
study. Average, specific and equipment-wise energy consumptions were analysed. Energy
saving potential was revealed by walkthrough energy audits. Moreover, average and specific
CO2 emissions were calculated. Specific energy consumption and CO2 emission for the
production of one piece of knitted garment from dyed-finished fabric was found as between
0.78-1.44 MJ/piece and 0.09-0.17 kgCO2/piece, respectively. Equipment-wise energy use
investigation of apparel production plants showed that the steam production, compressors and
lighting equipments have considerable share in total energy consumption and cost. Average
energy saving potential of 16.4% for apparel, 14.4% for embroidery and 11.6% for screen
printing plants were indicated to be possible. Application of energy efficient lighting
equipment was found to have the highest energy saving potential corresponding to 63% of the
total projected savings.

Keywords
clothing industry, knitted garment, energy consumption, energy saving, CO2 emission

1. Introduction

Clothing industry is among the largest sectors of the Turkish economy. Ready-made clothing
industry’s share in total exports of Turkey was 11.9% in 2016. Taking into account the textile
exports, the total share rises to 17.4%, making the textile and clothing industry the largest
exporting sector of the country [1]. It is the 7th biggest apparel supplier of the world with a
share of 3.8% and the 3rd biggest apparel supplier in the European Union market after China
and Bangladesh [2, 3]. Clothing industry of Turkey is mainly made up of small sized
companies [4]. Furthermore, according to Social Security Institution statistics [5], companies
employing from 1 to 19 people accounts for %80 of the total workplaces. Total workplace
number was reported to be 32228, which ranked 3rd in the manufacturing sector in terms of
workplaces number, and the number of issued employees to be nearly 470000.

Being such a large sector, Turkish clothing industry has also fragmented and heterogeneous
mode of operation, as in textile industry. Various types of plants such as apparel production,
embroidery, screen printing, piece washing/dyeing mills are working based on mutual
interaction for the production of garments. Therefore clothing industry has environmental
impacts at certain levels along its entire value chain due to the use of raw materials and
energy, as well as waste production and emissions. Dominating of the industry by just-in-time

*Corresponding author
E-mail adress: ahmet.cay@ege.edu.tr (A. Çay).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and fast fashion [6] is also believed to amplify the increase in environmental effects. Today,
clean production practices are at the front in order to provide sustainable production by
reducing environmental impacts. In example, some apparel brands are using Higg Index [7]
tool to measure environmental performances of their apparel products [8]. In doing so, they
expect their suppliers within all production chain to achieve certain performance criteria. In
this respect, the investigation of clothing industry in terms of energy consumption and energy
based emissions which are the important components of environmental impact.

There are various studies on energy consumption and energy efficiency of textile plants
including man-made fibre production, spinning, knitting, weaving and textile finishing [9-17].
However, investigation of clothing industry in terms of energy efficiency and greenhouse gas
emissions are quite limited. This could be due to the relatively lower energy use in garment
production. However investigation of clothing industry in terms of energy consumption was
thought to be worthy of examination, since the clothing industry comprises a large number of
plants in countries such as Turkey where textile production is intensive. Here, energy
consumption related articles in which clothing plants were incorporated were discussed.
Palamutcu [18] has investigated the electric energy consumption in various textile plants such
as spinning, warp sizing, weaving, finishing and apparel production. Actual and estimated
specific electric energy consumptions were reported. Actual specific energy consumption of
the apparel plant has been found as 0.065-0.195 kWh/kg. Apparel production plant has been
reported to show the highest deviation ratio between actual and estimated specific electric
energy use, which was remarked to be arisen due to the use of weight based production
quantity which differs depending on the product models and characteristics. In the study of
Herva et al. [19], energy and material flow analysis and ecological footprint methodologies
have been applied to an apparel plant producing jackets. Cutting process has been found as
the most energy intensive stage. Gas-oil has been identified as the most important source of
pollution and its substitution has been advised for cleaner sources. It was deduced from the
paper that the specific electric energy use was between 0.45-0.61 kWh/piece for jacket
production. Jananthant et al. [20] have investigated the energy consumption and breakdown of
energy use in apparel plants in Sri-Lanka. The air conditioner has been found to be the major
energy consumer (46%) followed by lighting (20%). 15-30% of energy saving potential has
been reported for the plants in the region surveyed. Butnariu and Avasilcai [21] have
presented a case study on the calculation of ecological footprint of an apparel plant. It has
been indicated that the value of the footprint was influenced by the type of fabrics used in
manufacturing process. Godiawala et al. [22] have investigated the use of daylight instead of
artificial lighting in apparel industry. They have pointed out that energy consumption of
lighting has a significant share in total energy consumption of apparel plants and use of
sunlight have a potential of 10% reduction in the total electric energy consumption. In the
study of Kong et al. [23], application of energy saving measures such as the use of energy
efficient lighting, the use of direct drive sewing machinery and the recovery of steam
condensate have been investigated for apparel plants.

The major objective of this study was to investigate energy consumption and energy saving
potential of different type of plants in clothing production chain. In total of 16 plants were
analysed. The energy consumption, energy cost and specific energy use were reported in
terms of energy type used. By a walkthrough energy audit, energy saving potentials were
discussed. Additionally, the CO2 emissions of each plant were calculated. The specific energy
consumption and the specific CO2 emission to produce one piece of knitted garment from
dyed-finished fabrics were revealed.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2. Methodology

Energy consumption and CO2 emissions of apparel production, embroidery and screen
printing plants were investigated. For this purpose, 10 apparel production, 3 embroidery and 3
screen printing plants located in 6 different cities of Turkey were analysed as shown in Table
1. These plants work as sub-contractors of various international brands and produce knitted
garments from dyed-finished knitted fabrics.

Table 1
Analysed plants
Monthly average
Plant no Plant type Energy type production Location (city)
(piece of garment/month)
1 Electricity 84044 İzmir
2 Electricity 140946 Ordu
3 Electricity 252196 Ordu
4 Electricity, natural gas 288901 İstanbul
5 Electricity, natural gas 205852 Batman
Apparel production
6 Electricity, natural gas 225740 Batman
7 Electricity, natural gas 134188 İstanbul
8 Electricity, natural gas 107006 İstanbul
9 Electricity, coal 90384 Kütahya
10 Electricity, coal 160559 Tokat
11 Electricity 542633 İstanbul
12 Embroidery Electricity 1088056 İstanbul
13 Electricity 213611 İzmir
14 Electricity 589462 İzmir
15 Screen printing Electricity, 419638 Ordu
16 Electricity, natural gas 431637 İzmir

General work-flow patterns of each type of plants with energy inputs were given in Figs. 1-3.
In apparel production plants, dyed-finished fabrics procured mainly from customers are
spreaded and cut in the first stage. If the garment products need embroidery and/or screen
printing, cut samples are sent to embroidery and/or screen printing plants. The following
stages are sewing and ironing of cut samples to produce garment products. As shown in Fig.
1, electricity is used for production machines, compressors, steam generators, lighting, space
heating and offices. Some plants also use natural gas steam generators. Additionally, natural
gas or coal is also used for space heating depending on the location of the plants. Waste
energy streams are the cooling air of compressors, exhaust air of natural gas steam boilers and
condensate from steam generation. Since steam is used for ironing process, produced steam is
sent out through irons (there is no indirect heating). Therefore, condensate is formed only due
to the heat losses in the steam pipeline. Thus, it is important that the amount of condensate is
as low as possible. The formation of high amount of condensate with high temperatures is an
indication of excess steam production as well as insufficient insulation.

In embroidery plants, as shown in Fig. 2, cut samples from apparel production plants are
embroidered and are sent back to apparel production after lining removal and quality control.
Electricity is used for all activities of the facility. Additionally, depending on the region,
natural gas or coal is used for space heating. The only waste energy stream is the cooling air
of the compressors.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 1. General work flow for an apparel production plant with energy inputs

Fig. 2. General work flow for an embroidery plant with energy inputs
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 3. General work flow for a screen printing plant with energy inputs

As in embroidery plants, screen printing plants process the cut samples procured from apparel
production plants. Samples are screen printed and dried using electricity. Dried samples are
fixated in fixation machines using electricity and/or natural gas. Fixated samples are sent back
to apparel production plants after quality control for garment production. Cooling air of the
compressors and exhaust air of fixation machines are the main waste energy streams.

18 months (the year 2016 and the first half of 2017) production and energy use data of each
plant were collected monthly. Energy consumption, energy costs and breakdown of energy
use depending on the plant type and energy source were investigated.

Specific energy consumption (SEC, MJ/piece) was calculated as

𝐸𝐶
𝑆𝐸𝐶 = 𝐴𝑃
(1)

where, EC is the monthly average energy consumption (MJ/month) and AP the monthly
average production in number of pieces (piece/month).

A walkthrough energy audit was applied to all plants. The compressors, steam generators,
steam pipelines and lighting equipments were examined. Energy saving potential of each
plant was investigated in terms of the following energy efficiency measures:
- Using compressor waste heat for space heating
- Reducing the inlet air temperature of the compressor
- Reducing the pressure of the compressed air
- Insulation of pipes, valves and flanges of steam pipeline
- Using solar energy for pre-heating of steam generator inlet water
- Installation of energy efficient LEDs
- Heat recovery from fixation exhaust air in screen printing
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Surface temperature of insulated and uninsulated pipes, valves, flanges and other equipments
were measured by a Testo 10i thermal camera and MS Pro IR thermometer. Ambient and
waste air temperatures were measured by a Testo 923 thermometer (with an air probe).

Heat recovery potential from compressor waste air was calculated considering 83-90% of the
electrical energy used by the compressor is converted into heat [24]. The heat recovery ratio
was estimated as 80% since during space heating applications the waste air of the compressor
is ducted directly into the facility.

The compressor work reduction potential through lowering the inlet air temperature was
estimated as
(𝑇 ‒ 𝑇0)
𝑊𝑅,𝑇 = 1 (𝑇1 + 273) (2)
where, WR,T is the fractional reduction in compressor work through inlet air temperature
reduction, T1 the average temperature of inside air, °C and T0 the average temperature of
ambient air, °C [25].

Fractional reduction potential in compressor work due to reduction in compressor pressure

(WR,P) was calculated as
((𝑃𝑑𝑝 + 𝑃𝑖)/𝑃𝑖)𝑘 ‒ 1/𝑘 ‒ 1
𝑊𝑅,𝑃 = 1 ‒ (3)
((𝑃𝑑𝑐 + 𝑃𝑖)/𝑃𝑖)𝑘 ‒ 1/𝑘 ‒ 1

where, Pdp is discharge pressure at proposed operating conditions, kPa; Pdc the discharge
pressure at current operating conditions, kPa, Pi the inlet pressure, kPa and k the ratio of
specific heat for air (k=1.4) [24].

Surface temperature and equivalent length approach [26, 27] was applied for valve and flange
insulation examination.

Application of solar water heating possibilities was considered for 2 plants (plants 5 and 6)
located in the South-eastern Anatolia region where the solar energy use potential is high with
2993 h/year sunshine duration [28]. Pre-heating of 4000 kg/month steam generator inlet water
from 20 °C to 70 °C was projected and discussed. Calculations were made considering 24
working days per month and 8 working hours per day.

Payback period of each application was calculated by using the following equation [29]:
𝐼𝑅
𝑃𝐵 = 𝐴𝐵𝑆 (4)

As well as energy consumption investigation, CO2 emissions of each plant were calculated.
CO2 emission due to fuels (Scope 1) and purchased electricity (Scope 2) were calculated
based on Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines using GHG protocol
calculation tools [30] with the following equation:

𝐶𝐸 = 𝐹𝐶 𝑥 𝐸𝐹 (5)

where, CE is the annual CO2 emission (kg/year), FC the activity data (amount of fuel or
electricity consumption, kWh/year for electricity, m3/year for natural gas and tonnes/year for
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

coal) and EF the CO2 emission factor (kgCO2/kWh for electricity, kgCO2/m3 for natural gas
and kgCO2/tonnes for coal).

Specific CO2 emissions (SCE, kgCO2/piece of garment) were calculated as

𝐶𝐸
𝑆𝐶𝐸 = 𝐴𝑃 (5)
where, CE is the monthly average CO2 emissions (kg/month) and AP the monthly average
production in number of pieces (piece/month).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Energy consumption

Electric energy is the main energy used in apparel production for production machines,
compressors, steam generators, lighting and space heating. Besides, depending on the region,
some plants use natural gas or coal for space heating. Although electric steam generators are
common in the apparel industry, the use of natural gas for steam production is also
encountered. Monthly average energy consumption of the analysed apparel production plants
were given in Table 2 depending on the energy source. Mean total energy use was found to be
⁓124 GJ/month and mean electricity use as ⁓27.4 MWh/month (⁓98.5 GJ/month). Specific
energy use of the plants was calculated considering energy usage per the number of products
(i.e. number of t-shirts). The average specific energy use and specific electricity use were
found to be 0.78 MJ/piece and 0.17 kWh/piece, respectively. The overall energy cost of the
analaysed plants was calculated to be 23.8 USD/GJ.

Table 2
Monthly average energy use, specific energy use and energy costs of analysed apparel production plants
Specific
Total Energy Specific
Plant Electricity Natural gas Coal electricity
energy cost energy use
no (kWh/month) (m3/month) (kg/month) use
(GJ/month) (USD/GJ) (MJ/piece)
(kWh/piece)
1 90.8 25209 23.2 1.11 0.31
2 65.7 18247 25.4 0.47 0.13
3 165.1 45854 23.7 0.65 0.18
4 161.9 35785 959 27.2 0.57 0.12
5 180.6 43553 690 23.6 0.88 0.21
6 185.5 43524 834 23.3 0.82 0.19
7 145.2 20702 2048 17.8 1.08 0.15
8 76.7 14972 660 27.7 0.72 0.14
* 70.7 15521 429 30.0 0.67 0.15
** 88.6 13876 1121 24.0 0.82 0.13
9 95.0 13646 2222 16.4 1.05 0.15
10 70.9 12174 1061 29.8 0.44 0.08
Mean 123.7 27367 1038 1642 23.8 0.78 0.17
*2016 data for plant no:8
**2017 (first half) data for plant no:8

Specific energy use of Plant 1 was found to be quite higher compared to the others. The
monthly average energy production of Plant 1 was moderate, but the production amount was
low. Specific energy use were calculated based on the number of produced garments such as
t-shirt, underwear, knitted pants, knitted sportswear, etc. Each type of garment requires a
different production time which directly influences the total production efficiency. Therefore,
this deviation might be the result of the production of garments requiring more detail and
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

attention. Moreover, the amount of repair work which increases energy consumption but not
production quantity might also lead an increase in specific energy use [18].

Fig. 4. Energy use and cost percentages of the apparel plants using natural gas (E-electricity, NG-natural gas)

Fig. 5. Energy use and cost percentages of the apparel plants using coal (E-electricity, C-coal)

The ratio of energy types within the overall energy use and overall energy costs of apparel
plants were given in Figs. 4 and 5 for natural gas and coal, respectively. When the plants that
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

use both electricity and natural gas were investigated, the average ratio of electricity
consumption was found to be 73% of the overall energy use. On the other hand, electric
energy cost was calculated to be 89% of the overall energy cost of the plants. This shows that
the monetary equivalent of savings in electricity consumption is important. In apparel
industry, natural gas is mainly used for space heating and domestic use. However, several
apparel plants use natural gas for steam production required for ironing process. Therefore,
the electricity/natural gas ratio differs depending on the type of steam production machines
such as electric steam generators or natural gas steam generators. Natural gas consumption
ratio was found to be around 46% for the plants with natural gas steam generators, while it
was 18% for the plants with electric steam generators. Similar trend was seen in energy cost
ratios. It was also analysed that the use of natural gas for steam production instead of
electricity, increased the total energy consumption. In example, Plant 8 had been used electric
steam generator in 2016 and in 2017 natural gas steam generator has been switched on. As
shown in Table 2, although the monthly and specific electricity consumption values have been
decreased; the overall and specific energy consumption have been increased due to the
increase in natural gas consumption (25% and 22% increase in monthly and specific energy
consumption, respectively). However, the benefit of switching to natural gas steam generator
was the reduction in energy costs. The energy cost of the plant was around 30 USD/GJ in
2016 and it was decreased to 24 USD/GJ (20% reduction) due to the use of natural gas steam
generator. The same situation is valid for Plant 7, which also uses natural gas for steam
production. It was observed that the energy cost of the plant was the lowest compared to the
other analysed plants while specific energy use was the highest.

Depending on the region especially where natural gas supply is not possible, coal is used for
space heating in apparel plants. The share of coal in total energy consumption was found to be
43%. Energy cost percentage of coal consumption was 18% of the total energy costs which is
similar to the plants using natural gas for only space heating purposes.

Table 3
Monthly average energy use, specific energy use and energy costs of analysed embroidery and screen printing
plants
Specific
Total Energy Specific
Plant Electricity Natural gas electricity
energy cost energy use
no (kWh/month) (m3/month) use
(GJ/month) (USD/GJ) (MJ/piece)
(kWh/piece)
11 274.8 76326 32.0 0.51 0.14
Embroidery 12 58.1 16133 27.8 0.05 0.01
13 42.9 11908 22.0 0.20 0.06
Mean 125.3 34789 27.3 0.25 0.07
14 329.5 91526 18.6 0.56 0.16
15 164.7 45758 22.8 0.39 0.11
Screen
16 120.2 30502 26.0 0.28 0.07
printing
* 106.9 29700 27.6 0.27 0.074
** 146.9 32107 908 23.8 0.30 0.066
Mean 204.8 55929 - 22.4 0.41 0.11
*2016 data for plant no:16
**2017 (first half) data for plant no:16

Table 3 shows the energy consumption and cost data of the analysed embroidery and screen
printing plants. Electricity is the major energy type used for all activities of the plants with the
exception of Plant 16 in which natural gas has been started to be used for fixating machines in
2017. The monthly average energy consumption of embroidery and screen printing plants
were found to be 125.3 GJ/month and 204.8 GJ/month, respectively. Energy costs of
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

embroidery and screen printing plants were similar to the apparel plants. As in the case of the
use of natural gas boilers in apparel, the use of natural gas assisted fixating machines led to a
decrease in energy cost (13.8% decrease in energy cost) although the total energy
consumption and specific energy use increased. Specific energy use of embroidery and screen
printing plants were calculated as around 0.25 MJ/piece and 0.41 MJ/piece, respectively.
Specific energy use of these plants were lower compared to apparel production plants due to
fact that the output of these plants are higher because of the high production speed.

Today, garment products mostly include printing and/or embroidery. As a general practice in
the plants, fabrics which are cut in apparel factories are sent to embroidery and/or printing
plants. After embroidery and/or printing, cut pieces are returned to the apparel plants for
sewing and ironing. For this reason, it is more accurate to consider the specific energy use of
each type of plants for reporting the specific energy consumption to produce a piece of
garment from a dyed-finished fabric. From this point of view, following specific energy
consumption values were found:
- one piece of knitted garment (without embroidery and printing): 0.78 MJ/piece
- one piece of embroidered knitted garment: 1.03 MJ/piece
- one piece of screen printed knitted garment: 1.19 MJ/piece
- one piece of embroidered and screen printed knitted garment: 1.44 MJ/piece

3.2 Breakdown of energy use

Considering the machine infrastructure and utilisation rates, the average distribution of the
energy consumption of the analysed plants with respect to the main equipments was reported.
The main energy-consuming sections for apparel plants were considered as the production
machines, steam generator, compressor, lighting equipments and space heating applications.
Depending on the energy consumption, apparel plants can be classified as the plants using
only electricity and the plants using electricity and fossil fuels. Therefore, equipment-wise
energy consumption percentages were analysed separately for each type of plants. Fig. 6
illustrates the average energy consumption percentages of the apparel plants using only
electricity with respect to the main equipments. Here, it should be noted that space heating
applications (infrared heating equipments, air-conditioners) and office equipments included in
the production machines section. It was shown that the main electricity consuming section is
the production machinery. Electric steam generators comprise a share of 24%, compressors
15% and lighting equipment 14%. Equipment-wise energy cost distribution was the same
since only one type of energy source was used. These percentages depict that each section is
important in terms of the implementation of electric energy efficiency applications.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 6. Breakdown of energy use of the analysed apparel plants using only electricity

Fig. 7. Breakdown of energy use and energy cost of the analysed apparel plants using electricity and fossil fuels
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 7 shows the equipment-wise energy consumption and cost percentages of apparel plants
using electricity and fossil fuels. When all the plants at issue were taken into account, energy
consumption of production machines had a share of 36%, steam generators 20%, compressors
12%, lighting equipment 10% and space heating applications 22%. When energy costs were
examined, it was shown that the energy cost percentages of steam generators and space
heating were much lower (16% for steam generator and 8% for space heating) since relatively
cheap fossil fuels were used in these sections. However, these percentages differed depending
on the type and the intended use of the fossil fuel (natural gas or coal). The changes were
more prominent in space heating applications and steam generation. In example, 43% of total
energy was used for space heating applications in coal using plants in which coal was only
used for space heating in winter conditions. The energy cost percentage of coal use was found
to be 18%. As aforementioned, natural gas is used for steam generation and/or space heating.
Natural gas assisted space heating had a share of 16% of the total energy consumption for the
plants using electric steam generators (which means they use natural gas for only space
heating applications). On the other hand, for the plants using natural gas for both space
heating and steam production, natural gas steam generators were found to have a share of
37% of the total energy consumption, while space heating represent 9%. Although the
equipment-wise energy consumption percentages differed depending on the intended use of
natural gas, it was observed that the energy cost percentages did not change to a great extent.
Accordingly, energy cost of production machines comprised a share of 49-50%, steam
generator 16-18%, compressor 13-18%, lighting 12-14% and space heating 5% for the apparel
plants using natural gas.

Average equipment-wise energy consumption percentages of embroidery and screen printing

plants were given in Fig. 8. The production machines, compressors and lighting equipments
were selected as the main sections. The production machine section such as embroidery,
fusing removal for embroidery plants and electric printing, drying and fixation machines for
screen printing plants was shown to have highest energy consumption. The compressors had
similar percentage as 16-18%, while the percentage of lighting was quite higher for
embroidery plants (14%) compared to screen printing (3%).

Fig. 8. Breakdown of energy use of the analysed embroidery and screen printing plants

3.3 Energy saving potentials

In the scope of the study, a walkthrough energy audit was applied to the analysed plants and
energy saving opportunities were reported. As aforementioned the main sections with
significant share of energy consumption in apparel plants are the production machinery,
compressors, steam generators and lighting equipment.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The energy consumption efficiency can be improved in production machinery section through
motor size control, avoiding the use of rewinded motors, the controls in electric line such as
voltage imbalance correction, power factor improvement, appropriate transformer choice,
control of earth leakages and insulation [20, 31-33]. In addition to the measures for the
reduction in electric energy, reduction in electric energy costs through demand control and
load management [33] is possible. Besides, the electricity consumption of the production
machines can be reduced by the application of organisational measures such as the revision of
the production planning, the regulation of the laying plans, etc., since it is strictly connected to
the production efficiency. Such applications, however requires a follow-up analysis including
work study assessment, and full coordination of the planning, production and energy
departments of the factories. Another option for energy efficiency in production machinery is
to use inverters and direct drive motors instead of using motors in fixed speed [31, 33].
Analysed apparel plants were observed to use energy efficient production machines equipped
with integrated direct drive motors already. Therefore, due to the aforementioned reasons,
production machinery section was excluded from the audit and compressors, steam generators
and lighting equipments were taken into account during the audit. However, as a further
study, a detailed analysis on the energy efficiency of production machinery was planned.

For screen printing plants, fixating machines were also included into the audit, which exhausts
a high temperature waste air. Tables 4 and 5 shows the energy saving opportunities for
analysed apparel and embroidery/screen printing plants, respectively.

Compressors
The air-cooled screw compressors were mainly used to produce compressed air in analysed
apparel and print screen plants. Reciprocating compressors were also encountered in
embroidery plants. Compressor powers varied between 7.5 kW and 75 kW depending on
production capacity the plant type (22-75 kW in apparel, 7.5-37 kW in embroidery and 22-55
kW in screen printing).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4
Energy saving opportunities for analysed apparel plants
Plant Energy saving Payback period
Energy efficiency measures
no (%)* (months)
Compressors
1 3.3
2 4.5
3 6.4
4 6.6
5 6.1
Use of compressor waste air for space heating <12 months
6 6.0
7 2.0
8 4.0
9 2.6
10 6.4
2 0.9
7 0.3
Reducing the inlet air temperature <12 months
8 0.4
10 0.5
Reducing air pressure 3 2.0 -
Steam generators/boilers
1 1.2 11
3 1.0 12
4 1.0 10
Insulation of valves and flanges of the generator and steam
5 1.5 9
pipeline connected to the irons
6 1.4 9
7 1.1 22
8 3.2 18
Completion of missing steam pipeline insulation 4 1.4 1
Insulation of condensate pipeline 4 0.4 4
Insulation of the valves and flanges in boiler room 7 4.4 3
Prevention of excessive steam production 3 10.5 -
5 0.6 6 years
Using solar energy for steam generator inlet water pre-heating
6 0.6 6 years
Lighting
1 16.8 25
3 10.4 25
4 12.5 22
5 5.6 25
Installation of energy efficient LEDs 6 5.4 25
7 6.9 25
8 8.2 22
9 9.3 26
10 9.1 25
*according to average annual energy consumption
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 5
Energy saving opportunities for analysed embroidery and screen printing plants
Plant Energy saving Payback period
Energy efficiency measures
no (%)* (months)
Compressors
11 2.8
12 2.7
Using compressor waste air for space heating 14 1.4 <12 months
15 2.5
16 1.4
11 1.0
Reducing inlet air temperature <12 months
12 1.4
Reducing air pressure 16 0.6 -
Lighting
11 6.1 9
12 17.4 9
13 11.8 8
Installation of energy efficient LEDs
14** 9.0 12
15 2.6 13
16 1.7 13
Fixation machinery
14 6.8
Heat recovery from fixation exhaust air 15 3.5 N/A
16 5.2
*according to average annual energy consumption
**has already been applied

Since the compressors are air cooled, hot waste air is exhausted during load conditions. The
waste air temperatures were measured as 75-100 oC as exemplified in Fig. 9. The exhaust air
of screw compressors can be used for space heating in winter conditions through ducting the
waste air to the production area or offices. As shown in Tables 4 and 5, energy saving
potential of 2-6.6% for apparel plants and 1.4-2.8% for embroidery and screen printing plants
were reported. It should be considered that the resulting gains by the use of compressor waste
air for space heating will be higher in cold climatic regions, since in this application waste air
is exhausted to the outside in summer months.

Average temperature: 73.5 °C

Minimum temperature: 67.3 °C
Maximum temperature: 79.0 °C

Average temperature: 91.9 °C

Minimum temperature: 75.5 °C
Maximum temperature: 98.9 °C

Fig. 9. Examples of thermal images of the compressor waste air outlet (temperatures were given for exhaust air
area)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

It was seen that in some plants (plant no:2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12) compressors were installed in a
closed room inside or outside the facility. The waste air of the compressors was not
discharged to outside by a chimney and was sent directly to the interior environment, which
led to an increase in compressor inlet air temperature. Even in Plants 8 and 9, the compressors
and steam boilers were placed at the same room. The temperature measurements showed that
the compressor inlet air temperature could reach up to 45-48 oC. In practice it is known that
each 5 oC increase in inlet air temperature leads to increase in the compressor energy
consumption by about 2%. Therefore it is proposed to improve the ventilation of the
compressor room and to evacuate hot exhaust air with a chimney. The analyses revealed that
the decreasing the inlet air temperature had energy saving potential of 0.3-1.4% of average
annual energy consumption.

Operation at high pressure increases the energy consumption of the compressor. 7.5-8 bar is
sufficient for apparel plants. Reducing the pressure of the compressors operating at high
pressures from this value (compressor pressure was 9-9.5 bar at Plants 3 and 16) was reported
to save 0.6-2% of total energy consumption of the plant.

Steam generators
In Plants 2, 9 and 10 each iron was connected to a separate small steam generator, while
Plants 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 operated a central steam generator. The insulation of steam
pipelines was found to be sufficient; however, the valves and flanges at the generator outlet
and the iron inlet were seen to be uninsulated. Fig. 10 exemplifies the uninsulated valves and
flanges. Calculations showed that the insulation of valves and flanges with the valve jackets
had an energy saving potential of 1-3.2% of total energy consumption.

Average temperature: 135.7 °C

Minimum temperature: 117.9 °C
Maximum temperature: 150.4 °C

Average temperature: 114.1 °C

Minimum temperature: 57.4 °C
Maximum temperature: 137.6 °C

Average temperature: 120.8 °C

Minimum temperature: 73.0 °C
Maximum temperature: 146.5 °C

Fig. 10. Examples of thermal images of valves and flanges (temperatures were given for valve and flange
surfaces)

Moreover, energy saving percentages through completion of the missing steam pipeline
insulations, insulation of condensate pipelines and prevention of excessive steam production
were calculated (Table 4).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

As aforementioned, the type of fuel used for steam production is of importance. Although the
energy consumption increases by the use of natural gas steam generators, energy cost
decreases to a great extent. In example, Plant 8 was using electric steam generator (40 kW) in
2016 and switched to natural gas steam generator in 2017. Considering natural gas
consumption of approximately 1000 m3/month for steam production, it was calculated that the
energy consumption for steam production increased around 25%; however, energy cost for
steam production decreased approximately 60%. It should be noted that these results do not
exactly evident in the energy consumption data in Table 2. The reason is that the total energy
consumption differs depending on the production amount and the type of the products.
Whereas, the decrease in energy cost (USD/GJ) and the increase in specific energy use
(MJ/piece) are the indicatives of the effects of the fuel type.

Solar energy
The use of solar energy for pre-heating of steam generator feed water for Plants 5 and 6 was
investigated. Through this application it was calculated that only 0.6% energy saving could be
achieved. On the other hand the payback period was calculated to be quite long (6 years). It
should be taken into account that there will be more gain in areas where the average solar
radiation is higher and yearly radiation period is longer.

Lighting
The energy used for lighting in the analysed plants was 10-14% of total energy consumption
and 12-16% of total energy cost. The plants use standard 36 W fluorescent tubes. Instead of
these lambs, using 18 W LEDs (1 LED vs 2 fluorescent) was predicted to save 5.4-17.4% of
total energy of apparel and embroidery plants and 1.7-9.0% of total energy of screen printing
plants. It was indicated that utilisation of energy efficient lighting equipment had the highest
energy saving potential compared to the other measures reported in this contribution. An
actual application was reported for Plant 14. 9.0% energy saving was achieved through using
140 pieces of 50W LEDs instead of 700 pieces of 36 W fluorescent tubes with a payback
period of 1 year. The payback period of energy efficient lighting application was found to be
longer for apparel plants (22-26 months) compared to embroidery and screen printing plants
(8-13 months) due to the lower operating times (⁓8 hours a day). The initial cost for LED
lighting is quite higher, nearly seven times higher compared to standard fluorescent tubes.
However, considering their longer lifetime, it has been reported that LEDs are a cheaper
solution (two-thirds the price of standard fluorescent lamps) [34].

It should be noted that it is absolutely necessary to carry out a detailed examination for the
energy efficiency implementation in lighting equipment considering the location of the lamps,
the operation machinery arrangement and the desired light intensity values.

Along with energy efficient lighting, the use of natural lighting can be considered. However,
the variability in the daylight is the problem. The quality and the quantity of the light in the
production area are of importance in clothing industry. Poor colour rendering can cause
considerable quality problems and loss of time. Therefore, it is required to use standard
illumination with artificial lighting for production areas. On the other hand, for offices and
corridors use of natural lighting is of importance. It was observed that natural lighting is used
almost entirely in the offices of analysed plants through the windows.

Heat recovery from fixation exhaust air

In the screen printing fixating machines, air is heated up to 150 oC and exhausted after the
process with a temperature of 100-120 oC. This hot exhaust air can be utilised for pre-heating
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

of the fixating air or for space heating applications. Considering the heating of fresh air from
30 oC to 70 oC, about 3.5-6.8% energy saving was predicted.

Table 6
Total energy saving and CO2 emission reduction potentials of analysed plants
Energy Percentage
CO2 Specific CO2 CO2 emission
saving of lighting
Plant no emissions emissions reduction potential*
potential* measures
(tonnes/year) (kg CO2/piece) (%)
(%) (%)
Apparel production
1 21.3 138.8 0.14 21.3 78.8
2 5.4 100.5 0.06 5.2 0.0
3 30.3 252.6 0.08 36.7 28.3
4 21.9 218.8 0.06 20.6 69.0
5 13.8 255.5 0.10 11.1 54.5
6 13.4 258.6 0.10 11.0 54.3
7 14.7 160.4 0.10 15.2 62.6
8 15.8 97.4 0.08 20.4 55.9
9 11.9 145.2 0.13 12.1 77.5
10 16.0 100.5 0.05 15.9 61.7
Mean 16.4 172.8 0.09 16.9 54.3
Embroidery
11 9.9 420.4 0.06 9.9 61.7
12 21.5 88.9 0.01 21.5 80.9
13 11.8 65.6 0.03 11.8 100.0
Mean 14.4 191.6 0.03 14.4 80.9
Screen printing
14 17.2 504.1 0.07 17.0 53.7
15 8.6 252.0 0.05 9.2 30.6
16 8.9 174.8 0.03 9.5 23.3
Mean 11.6 310.3 0.05 11.9 35.9
*According to selected measures

Total energy saving potential of each plant was given in Table 6. Energy saving potential
differs between 5.4% and 30.3% depending on the type of the plant and type of the energy
used. It was indicated that an average energy saving potential of 16.4% for apparel plants,
14.4% for embroidery and 11.6% screen printing plants is possible when the selected energy
saving measures are applied. When total projected energy savings in apparel production plants
were analyzed, it was seen that the savings that will be provided in the lighting systems
corresponded to 63% of the total savings, followed by the gains from the compressor system
by 23%. Therefore, the implementation of energy efficiency measures in lighting systems was
shown to be a priority.

Limitations and difficulties in implementations

Although the energy saving opportunities mentioned above are possible, some limitations
may occur in terms of implementation. In the apparel industry, where the majority of small-
scale enterprises are located, some factories use the same building with other workshops.
Because of this, there may be a restriction of moving the compressor to the outdoor
environment because of the space constraint. In this case it would be beneficial at least to
provide the compressor air intake from the outside. For some factories with larger area, it was
observed that the compressor was located far from production and office area. If compressor
waste air is assessed, the heat losses will be high. For this reason, the location of the
compressor has to be replaced, so that the compressed air line needs to be replaced. This will
lead in increase in the cost and extension in the payback period.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Similarly, lack of available area is also a problem for solar panel installation for small scale
factories.

In terms of fuel type, it should be considered that some factories may not have access to all
fuel types due to the regional differences, as in Plants 2, 3, 10 and 15 where there is no natural
gas accession.

Advantages of using LED in lighting are mentioned above. LEDs can offer superior colour
rendering to most light sources, however the selection of proper LED is of importance since
there are many low-quality LEDs in the lighting market [35]. During LED lighting
installation, the amount of light in the environment should be carefully measured and the
expected efficacy values should be provided. Some customer brands, on the other hand,
require productions to be at a certain lighting level under a certain light source. This is an
obstacle to the replacement of lighting equipment.

As another issue, since energy consumption in clothing factories has a small share in total
costs, the monetary return of energy efficiency applications other than lighting is often lower.
For this reason, managers can avoid making such investments.

3.4 CO2 emissions and CO2 emission reduction potential

CO2 emissions arising from production processes were calculated according to IPCC Tier-1
approach as shown in Table 6. Average annual CO2 emissions of the analysed plants were
found as 172.8 tonnes CO2/year for apparel production, 191.6 CO2/year for embroidery and
310.3 CO2/year for screen printing plants. Specific CO2 emissions of the apparel production
plants were shown to be higher compared to embroidery and screen printing plants. It was
found that an average of 0.09 kg of CO2 was emitted to produce (cutting and sewing of
knitted fabrics without embroidery and printing) one piece of knitted garment product in
apparel production plants.

As discussed in specific energy consumption calculation, it is more accurate to consider the

specific emissions of the three types of plants (apparel production, embroidery and screen
printing) for the reporting of the amount of CO2 emitted to produce a piece of garment from a
dyed-finished fabric. Following energy use based specific CO2 emission values were found:
- one piece of knitted garment (without embroidery and printing): 0.09 kg CO2/piece
- one piece of embroidered knitted garment: 0.12 kg CO2/piece
- one piece of screen printed knitted garment: 0.14 kg CO2/piece
- one piece of embroidered and screen printed knitted garment: 0.17 kg CO2/piece

CO2 emission reduction potential of each plant due to the possible implementation of selected
energy efficiency applications were calculated and reported in Table 6. As expected, the
results were similar to the energy saving potentials. Annual average CO2 emission reductions
of 16.9% for apparel production, 14.4% for embroidery and 11.9% for screen printing were
reported. As in energy saving results, here again, improvements in lighting systems was found
to be more important in reducing CO2 emissions especially for apparel production and
embroidery plants in which energy use in lighting have a considerable share.

Energy saving and carbon reduction opportunities, their payback periods and interest of plant
managers for implementation of such measures may vary with the effect of external
environmental factors. External environmental factors can be considered as political,
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

economic, social, technological and environmental influences. Turkey is a country dependent

on foreign primary energy sources (around 70%). As a result, changes in fuel supply and
increase in fuel prices for political and economic reasons may lead to an increase in the ratio
of energy costs within the total costs of the factories. In terms of energy technologies, as a
result of the external dependency, the continuous increase in the exchange rates increases the
cost of applications such as energy efficient lighting, heat exchangers and insulation
materials, thus payback periods are extended. Possibly, the most important external
environmental factors that drives apparel plants to energy saving and carbon reduction
practices are social and environmental factors. Especially in recent years, with the increase in
environmental awareness customers have begun to prefer sustainable products. In this sense,
energy-efficient and low-carbon clothing products have the potential to gain an important
place in the market as a marketing strategy. In addition, international brands have in particular
developed a number of systems for sustainable production (in example Higg Index) which
drives the apparel plants to apply practices to reduce the amount of energy, carbon emission,
water and wastes. It is therefore necessary for plants to be adapted to these systems, which is
thought to increase the potential for implementation of energy efficiency applications in
clothing industry.

4. Conclusions

Companies operating in the Turkish clothing industry in the production chain of knitted
garment manufacturing was investigated in terms of energy consumption and energy saving
potential for the first time in this study. In this context, 16 plants were examined in the
research, including apparel production, embroidery and screen-printing operations. The main
conclusions drawn from the results of the present study are listed as follows:
- Monthly average energy consumption of apparel production, embroidery and screen
printing plants were found to be 123.7 GJ/month, 125.3 GJ/month and 204.8 GJ/month,
respectively.
- Specific energy use of apparel production was found to be higher (0.78 MJ/piece)
compared to embroidery (0.25 MJ/piece) and screen printing (0.41 MJ/piece) plants.
- The main energy type is electricity, besides some plants uses natural gas or coal mainly
for space heating applications. Additionally it was reported that the use of natural gas for
steam production or fixation led to an increase in specific energy use, on the other hand a
decrease in energy cost.
- Specific energy consumption for the production of one piece of knitted garment from
dyed-finished fabric was found to be between 0.78-1.44 MJ/piece depending on whether
the product is embroidered/screen printed or not.
- Equipment-wise energy use investigation of apparel production plants showed that steam
production, compressors and lighting equipments have a considerable share in total
energy consumption and cost. Therefore these sections should be considered for energy
efficiency applications.
- Walkthrough energy audit showed that the energy saving potential differs between 5.4%
and 30.3% depending on the type of the plant and type of the energy used. It was
indicated that an average energy saving potential of 16.4% for apparel production plants,
14.4% for embroidery and 11.6% screen printing plants is possible when the selected
energy saving measures are applied.
- Application of energy efficient lighting equipment was found to have the highest energy
saving potential (corresponded to 63% of the total savings) compared to the other
measures. Using of energy efficient lighting was predicted to save 5.4-17.4% of total
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

energy of apparel and embroidery plants and 1.7-9.0% of total energy of screen printing
plants.
- The use of compressor cooling air for space heating was shown to have energy saving
potential of 2-6.6% for apparel plants and 1.4-2.8% for embroidery and screen printing
plants.
- 1-3.2% reduction potential in total energy consumption was predicted by the insulation of
the valves and flanges in the steam pipeline.
- Average annual CO2 emissions were found as 172.8 tonnes CO2/year for apparel
production, 191.6 CO2/year for embroidery and 310.3 CO2/year for screen printing plants.
- Specific CO2 emission for the production of one piece of knitted garment from dyed-
finished fabric was found to be between 0.09-0.17 kg CO2/piece depending on whether
the product is embroidered/screen printed or not.
- Annual average CO2 emission reductions of 16.9% for apparel production, 14.4% for
embroidery and 11.9% for screen printing by the implementation of selected energy
efficiency measures were reported.

This study was conducted for the plants producing knitted garments. Investigation of woven
garment production in terms of energy consumption and energy saving potentials were
planned as a future study.

Acknowledgement

Author would like to acknowledge Üniteks Textile, Turkey for facilitating the coordination of
this work.

Nomenclature

ABS annual bill saving, USD/year

AP monthly average production in number of pieces, piece/month
CE annual CO2 emission, kg/year
EC monthly average energy consumption, MJ/month
EF CO2 emission factor
FC activity data
IR investment required, USD
k the ratio of specific heat
P discharge pressure, kPa
PB payback period, month
SCE specific CO2 emission, kgCO2/piece
SEC specific energy consumption, MJ/piece
T average temperature, °C
WR fractional reduction in compressor work

Subscripts
0 ambient air
1 inside air
dp proposed operating conditions
dc current operating conditions
i inlet
T temperature reduction
P pressure reduction
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

References

1. General Secretariat of İstanbul Textile and Apparel Exporters’ Association (İTKİB).

Export performance evaluation of ready-made garment sector (In Turkish); ITKIB
General Secretary Ready-made Garment R&D Branch, 2016; https://www.ihkib.org.tr/fp-
icerik/ia/d/2017/01/26/konfeksiyon-performans-raporu-ocak-aralik-2016-
201701261202160570-2DC60.pdf (Accessed May 22, 2018).
2. World Trade Organization (WTO). World Trade Statistical Review 2017;
https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2017_e/wts2017_e.pdf (Accessed May 22,
2018).
3. İstanbul Apparel Exproters’ Association (IHKIB). IHKIB and Turkish apparel industry;
https://www.ihkib.org.tr/fp-icerik/ia/d/2016/11/18/ihkib-and-apparel-industry-canada-
201611181657000447-334CA.pdf (Accessed May 22, 2018).
4. Turkish Clothing Manufacturers’ Association. Ufuk 2030, Turkish Clothing Industry
Roadmap, 2016; http://www.tgsd.org.tr/assets/2017/ufuk2030Ingilizce.pdf (Accessed
May 22, 2018).
5. Social Security Institution of Turkey (SGK). SGK Statistical Annals, 2016;
http://www.sgk.gov.tr/wps/portal/sgk/tr/kurumsal/istatistik/sgk_istatistik_yilliklari
(Accessed May 22, 2018).
6. Clancy G, Fröling M, Peters G. Ecolabels as drivers of clothing design. J Clean Prod.
2015;99:345-353.
7. Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC). The Higg Index;
www.apparelcoalition.org/HiggIndex (Accessed March 16, 2018).
8. Khan MR, Islam M. Materials and manufacturing environmental sustainability evaluation
of apparel product: knitted T-shirt case study. Textiles and Clothing Sustainability 2015;
DOI 10.1186/s40689-015-0008-8.
9. Kalliala E, Talvenmaa P. Environmental profile of textile wet processing in Finland. J
Clean Prod. 2000;8:143-154.
10. Kiran-Ciliz N. Reduction in resource consumption by process modifications in cotton wet
processes. J Clean Prod. 2003;11:481-486.
11. Ozturk HK. Energy usage and cost in textile industry: A case study for Turkey. Energy
2005;30:2424-2446.
12. Kocabas AM, Yukseler H, Dilek FB, Yetis U. Adoption of European Union’s IPPC
Directive to a textile mill: Analysis of water and energy consumption. J Environ Manage.
2009;91:102-113.
13. Koç E, Çinçik E. Analysis of energy consumption in woven fabric production. Fibres
Text East Eur. 2010;18(2):14-20.
14. Hasanbeigi A, Price L. A review of energy use and energy efficiency technologies for the
textile industry. Renew Sust Energy Rev. 2012;16:3648-3665.
15. Aranda-Usón A, Ferreira G, Mainar-Toledo MD, Scarpellini S, Sastresa EL. Energy
consumption analysis of Spanish food and drink, textile, chemical and non-metallic
mineral products sectors. Energy 2012;42:477-485.
16. Peng L, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Zeng X, Peng N, Yu A. Energy efficiency and influencing
factor analysis in the overall Chinese textile industry. Energy 2015;93:1222-1229.
17. Cay A, Tarakçıoğlu I, Hepbasli A. Exergetic performance assessment of a stenter system
in a textile finishing mill. Int J Energy Res. 2007;31:1251-1265.
18. Palamutcu S. Electric energy consumption in the cotton textile processing stages. Energy
2010;35:2945-2952.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

19. Herva M, Álvarez A, Roca E. Combined application of energy and material flow analysis
and ecological footprint for the environmental evaluation of a tailoring factory. J Hazard
Mater. 2012;237-238:231-239.
20. Jananthant R, Ameer S, Shiyamini R. Comparative study of energy assessment from
apparel industries: the context of Sri Lanka. First International Conference on Industrial
and Information Systems, ICIIS 2006, August 8-11, 2006, Sri Lanka.
21. Butnariu A, Avasilcai S. Research on the possibility to apply ecological footprint as
environmental performance indicator for the textile industry. Procedia Soc Behav Sci.
2014;124:344-350.
22. Godiawala P, Anand N, Patel JM. Sky-lighting – A solution to reducing energy
consumption in apparel sector. International Journal of Scientific and Research
Publications 2014;4(4):1-7.
23. Kong F, Liang C, Han W. Study of energy-saving reform in garment production
enterprises. Adv Mater Res. 2013;790:790-793.
24. Saidur R, Rahim NA, Hasanuzzaman M. A review on compressed-air energy use and
energy savings. Renew Sust Energy Rev. 2010;14:1135-1153.
25. Kaya D, Phelan P, Chau D, Sarac HI. Energy conservation in compressed-air systems. Int
J Energy Res. 2002;26:837-849.
26. Giurca I. Calculation of heat loss through the pipes of the interior central heating system.
J Appl Eng Sci. 2015;5(18):29-36.
27. Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE). A Satury Body under Ministry of Power
Government of India. Insulation and Refractories, 2005.
28. Benli H. Potential application of solar water heaters for hot water production in Turkey.
Renew Sust Energy Rev. 2016;54:99-109.
29. Ganesan P, Thirugnanasambandam M, Rajakarunakaran S, Devaraj D. Specific energy
consumption and CO2 emission reduction analysis in a textile industry. Int J Green
Energy. 2015;12(7):685-693.
30. www.ghgprotocol.org (Accessed May 25, 2018).
31. Önüt S, Soner S. Analysis of energy use and efficiency in Turkish manufacturing sector
SMEs. Energy Convers Manag. 2007;48:384-394.
32. Hong G-B, Su T-L, Lee J-D, Hsu T-C, Chen H-W. Energy conservation potential in
Taiwanese textile industry. Energy Policy. 2010;38:7048-7053.
33. Hasanbeigi A. Energy-efficient improvement opportunities for the textile industry.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2010; https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6jw8s2gz
(Accessed May 25, 2018).
34. Pimputkar S, Speck JS, DenBaars SP, Nakamura S. Prospects for LED lighting. Nat
Photonics. 2009;3:180-182.
35. Fontoynont M. LED lighting, ultra-low-power lighting schemes for new lighting
applications. C R Phys. 2018;19:159-168.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

- Steam boiler, compressor and lighting have considerable share in energy consumption
- Specific energy consumption was found to be between 0.78-1.44 MJ/piece
- 5.4-30.3% of energy saving potential was assessed for knitted garment production
- Energy efficient lighting application has the highest energy saving potential
- Specific CO2 emission was calculated to be 0.09-0.17 kgCO2/piece