How we score health impact

Every product page on FabricIQ now shows a Health Impactgrade alongside the overall fabric grade and eco score. It answers a different question than "is this well-made" — it asks how much plastic is touching your skin, shedding into the air you breathe, and what chemical treatments did this garment likely receive on its way to you.

Health Impact is a heuristic derived from composition + category data. It is not medical advice and does not represent lab testing of a specific item. Treat it as a directional signal — "all else equal, lean toward the lower-impact alternative."

The three signals

1. Microplastic shedding

Synthetic fibers (polyester, nylon, acrylic, fleece, spandex) shed microscopic plastic fibers every time they are washed and worn. A single 6 kg synthetic load releases an estimated 700,000 fibers per wash; fleece is the worst at ~1.7 million. Those fibers end up in waterways, in the air inside your home, and increasingly in human blood, lungs, and placentas.

We score this on the highest-shedding fiberin the blend, weighted by its percentage. 100% natural is "low", <20% synthetic is "low", 20–50% is "medium", >50% is "high".

2. Skin-contact synthetic load

Wearing plastic against your skin all day is not the same as wearing it as an outer shell. Sweat increases dermal exchange, and some garment categories sit on the skin for the most hours per day. We weight the synthetic % by category:

• 1.5× — Baby clothing
• 1.4× — Underwear
• 1.3× — Sleepwear
• 1.2× — Socks, Activewear (sweat)
• 1.0× — T-Shirts, Shirts, Dresses, Swimwear
• 0.9× — Pants, Jeans, Shorts, Skirts
• 0.7× — Sweaters, Suits
• 0.5× — Jackets, Outerwear (worn over other layers)
• 0.3× — Accessories

So a 70% polyester underwear scores worse than a 70% polyester sweater scores worse than a 70% polyester jacket — even though the fabric blend is identical.

3. Likely chemical treatments

Three of the most common finishes in modern garment manufacturing leave residues that have raised regulatory or peer-reviewed health concerns. We flag the combinations of composition + category where these treatments are likely, possible, or leave trace residue. We do not have ingredient-level data for individual SKUs — these are heuristic flags based on industry-standard practices.

• PFAS (likely) — durable water repellent on synthetic outerwear and jackets. Industry standard until very recently; many brands still ship C6 PFAS or fluorine-free DWR that degrades to PFAS analogues. Flagged on outerwear / jackets with ≥50% synthetic content.
• Formaldehyde (possible)— used as a wrinkle-resistance finish on cotton-dominant dress shirts, especially "non-iron" or "wrinkle-free" marketed garments. Flagged on Shirts category with ≥50% cotton + ≥5% polyester.
• Antimony (trace) — antimony trioxide is the catalyst used to produce virgin PET. Trace residue (typically 200–300 ppm in fabric) is widespread; recycled PET carries less but is not antimony-free. Flagged on any item ≥30% polyester.

How the score is calculated

Each signal subtracts from a starting score of 100:

• Microplastic: high → −30, medium → −15, low → 0
• Skin contact: continuous penalty of weighted_synthetic_pct × 0.3, capped at −30. (So 100% poly underwear at 1.4× weight = 140 × 0.3 = capped at −30; 100% poly jacket at 0.5× weight = 50 × 0.3 = −15.)
• Chemical treatments: high (any "likely" flag) → −30, moderate (any "possible" flag) → −15, trace-only → 0

The grade follows the same A/B/C/D/F brackets as our overall score: A ≥ 85, B ≥ 70, C ≥ 55, D ≥ 40, F < 40.

What this score is not

• It is not medical advice. See a doctor for actual exposure assessment.
• It is not lab testing. We have not measured antimony, PFAS, or formaldehyde levels in any specific item — we flag combinations where the literature says these treatments are common.
• It is not the same as our overall fabric grade. A 100% polyester athletic shirt can score well on durability + breathability while still earning a low Health Impact grade. Both grades are real and answer different questions.

Topic guides

Specific health concerns and product alternatives:

• Plastic-free clothing — stop wearing synthetic fibers
• PFAS-free jackets and outerwear
• Non-iron shirt alternatives — without formaldehyde
• Plastic-free baby clothing
• Plastic-free underwear
• Synthetic-free activewear — wool and natural fiber alternatives

Citations & further reading

• De Falco, F. et al. (2018). Evaluation of microplastic release caused by textile washing processes of synthetic fabrics. Environmental Pollution, 236, 916–925.
• Napper, I. E., Thompson, R. C. (2016). Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres from domestic washing machines. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 112, 39–45.
• Carney Almroth, B. M. et al. (2018). Quantifying shedding of synthetic fibers from textiles. Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
• EU REACH Annex XVII restrictions on PFAS in textiles (proposed 2023, phasing in 2025–2027).
• U.S. EPA (2024). PFAS in commerce: Test orders and Significant New Use Rules covering durable water repellents.
• WHO (1989, updated 2010). Formaldehyde in indoor air and consumer products.
• Westerhoff, P. et al. (2008). Antimony leaching from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic used for bottled drinking water. Water Research, 42, 551–556. (PET feedstock context.)

← Back to FabricIQ