Dyeing for change: Why microbes could clean up fashion's toxic mess
Three different microbial pigments
Colorifix
What comes to mind first when you think about the environmental cost of what we wear every day?
Fossil-fuel fabrics, overflowing landfills and underpaid labour are often front and centre of the conversation, and rightly so.
But what rarely makes it into the headlines - is dye - the stuff that makes our clothes colourful.
Textile dyeing is actually one of the most chemically intensive and polluting elements of garment production, accounting for roughly 20% of global industrial water pollution.
The vast majority of dyes in use today are made from petrochemicals, derived from crude oil. And the amount of water required in the process is staggering.
A single pair of blue denim jeans can take up to 7,000 litres of water to produce. Plus, the indigo hue is synthetic and involves toxic chemicals and heavy metals in its manufacturing.
In factories all over the world, from China to Bangladesh, these pollutants are dumped untreated into rivers, poisoning ecosystems and endangering communities.
It's a problem that sits in plain sight, literally on our backs, yet remains largely missing from the sustainable fashion discourse.
Synthetic dyes are cheap, efficient and industrially embedded. They provide a wide colour spectrum, which brands like, and deliver predictable results - perhaps why no viable solution has been able to compete.
Natural dyes made out of plants have been used for centuries, but their problem? The colours tend to be earthy and dull and, crucially, don't stick to the fabric and eventually fade.
One British breakthrough may have solved the problem, by inventing a 'green' dye (not literally) that meets the industry's rigorous expectations. It's scaleable - and that means there is potential to disrupt the status quo.
Instead of mining oil or boiling vats of chemicals, Colorifix uses engineered microorganisms, (essentially programmable microbes) to grow colours in the lab. Fed with sugar and salt to create a specific pigment, these microbes act like miniature factories, brewing vibrant dyes that are transferred directly onto fabric using a fraction of the water and none of the toxic additives.
Fed with sugar and salt to create a specific pigment, the microbes act like miniature factories, brewing vibrant dyes.
The idea first emerged from a very different kind of lab, out in nature. In 2012, two University of Cambridge researchers were studying polluted drinking water in rural Nepal. They used bacteria to detect contaminants in water, which had been engineered to change colour in the presence of specific chemicals - a simple, visual indicator for unsafe water.
But as they spoke with local communities about the root causes, the answer kept circling back to the same culprit: textile dye.
So instead of building tools to detect pollution, they pivoted to tackling the source of it directly, by using DNA sequencing found in our natural world. Say, the genetic code for blue in a butterfly wing, or the pink of a flower petal.
By using DNA sequencing, they can copy the genetic code for a blue butterfly wing.
'Synthetic dyes are very well studied and substantiated in the textiles industry - but we're doing our own analysis from scratch,' explains co-founder Jim Ajioka. 'Growing the microorganism is a natural process, but we have modified it, to make the colours of other living organisms.'
'We get inspiration from nature - rather than extracting from nature,' says the other co-founder Orr Yarkoni.
Their approach is so radical that it has been recognised royally in the UK.
Colorifix became a finalist for the Earthshot Prize in 2023, a yearly contest led by Prince William to find the world's most promising environmental solutions. The Prize is often said to have been inspired by JFK's 'Moonshot' and was designed to incentivise tipping-point innovations.
It has five categories, nature protection, clean air, oceans, climate and the one Colorifix competed in, waste-free solutions. Finalists receive mentorship and access to a network of global businesses, investors, and environmental organisations ready to help scale their ideas.
The Prince visited the lab this week to praise founders Yarkoni and Ajioka on their science-led approach. 'It's really exciting and I know you're going to push into the industry very quickly,' he told the team.
'It's really exciting and I know you're going to push into the industry very quickly.'
The microbial dye solution is already moving beyond the lab. In the last few years, it has received significant funding from highstreet brand H&M (here's a t-shirt dyed by Colorifix). H&M's innovation arm has invested in pilot dyeing projects in Portugal, where the startup's biologically grown pigments were used on items produced for both H&M and Pangaia.
This marked one of the first real-world commercial applications of the technology.
Today, Colorifix has just closed a $18 million Series B2 round, led by Inter IKEA Group, to fuel global commercial expansion.
'This investment marks a critical milestone as we shift from proving our technology to delivering it at industrial scale,' Yarkoni tells me.
Colorifix has just closed a $18 million investment from IKEA to fuel global commercial expansion.
Linn Clabburn from IKEA's innovation arm agrees. 'Colorifix is addressing one of the toughest sustainability challenges in textiles,' she says. Their progress in scaling this tech and entering new markets 'aligns well' with IKEA's ambitions to improve sustainability in the value chain, she adds.
It's a vote of confidence not just in the science, but in the market's readiness for a pioneering solution.
Unlike other sustainable alternatives that require entire factories to be revamped, Colorifix's process is essentially plug-and-play and compatible with existing industrial dyeing equipment.
That means factories don't need to overhaul infrastructure to adopt it, which removes one of the biggest barriers to sustainable innovation: cost and complexity.
The potential ripple effect is huge. If Colorifix can roll out its microbial dyeing process across fashion and homeware with some of the biggest household names, it could help detoxify one of the most water and chemical-intensive elements of garment production.
Transforming a $2 trillion-dollar supply chain does not come without its challenges. Colorifix's technology may be simple to implement, but scaling it globally means convincing the big names this is the right idea for them, never mind navigating strict regulatory frameworks.
Textile manufacturers, often operating on razor-thin margins, can be slow to adopt new methods - especially in regions where environmental protocols are lax and synthetic dyes remain cheap and abundant.
Yet, momentum is building. Colorifix is already working with mills in Portugal, India and Brazil, with plans to expand into Southeast Asia, one of the largest dyeing hubs in the world.
'We are sure to make a difference.'
And the prospects don't stop at fabric. The founders say their microbial process could one day be adapted for other industries like cosmetics and hair dye.
When Prince William comes to visit a project like this, he isn't just there to tick a box. The Earthshot Prize was clearly designed to elevate this kind of bold, science-based solution with the power to transform entire systems. In fashion, that means anywhere we use colour, microbes could one day replace petrochemicals.
'Over the last few years, we have gone from grammes to tonnes of fabric per week,' says Yarkoni. 'We are sure to make a difference.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
7 hours ago
- Forbes
Dyeing for change: Why microbes could clean up fashion's toxic mess
Three different microbial pigments Colorifix What comes to mind first when you think about the environmental cost of what we wear every day? Fossil-fuel fabrics, overflowing landfills and underpaid labour are often front and centre of the conversation, and rightly so. But what rarely makes it into the headlines - is dye - the stuff that makes our clothes colourful. Textile dyeing is actually one of the most chemically intensive and polluting elements of garment production, accounting for roughly 20% of global industrial water pollution. The vast majority of dyes in use today are made from petrochemicals, derived from crude oil. And the amount of water required in the process is staggering. A single pair of blue denim jeans can take up to 7,000 litres of water to produce. Plus, the indigo hue is synthetic and involves toxic chemicals and heavy metals in its manufacturing. In factories all over the world, from China to Bangladesh, these pollutants are dumped untreated into rivers, poisoning ecosystems and endangering communities. It's a problem that sits in plain sight, literally on our backs, yet remains largely missing from the sustainable fashion discourse. Synthetic dyes are cheap, efficient and industrially embedded. They provide a wide colour spectrum, which brands like, and deliver predictable results - perhaps why no viable solution has been able to compete. Natural dyes made out of plants have been used for centuries, but their problem? The colours tend to be earthy and dull and, crucially, don't stick to the fabric and eventually fade. One British breakthrough may have solved the problem, by inventing a 'green' dye (not literally) that meets the industry's rigorous expectations. It's scaleable - and that means there is potential to disrupt the status quo. Instead of mining oil or boiling vats of chemicals, Colorifix uses engineered microorganisms, (essentially programmable microbes) to grow colours in the lab. Fed with sugar and salt to create a specific pigment, these microbes act like miniature factories, brewing vibrant dyes that are transferred directly onto fabric using a fraction of the water and none of the toxic additives. Fed with sugar and salt to create a specific pigment, the microbes act like miniature factories, brewing vibrant dyes. The idea first emerged from a very different kind of lab, out in nature. In 2012, two University of Cambridge researchers were studying polluted drinking water in rural Nepal. They used bacteria to detect contaminants in water, which had been engineered to change colour in the presence of specific chemicals - a simple, visual indicator for unsafe water. But as they spoke with local communities about the root causes, the answer kept circling back to the same culprit: textile dye. So instead of building tools to detect pollution, they pivoted to tackling the source of it directly, by using DNA sequencing found in our natural world. Say, the genetic code for blue in a butterfly wing, or the pink of a flower petal. By using DNA sequencing, they can copy the genetic code for a blue butterfly wing. 'Synthetic dyes are very well studied and substantiated in the textiles industry - but we're doing our own analysis from scratch,' explains co-founder Jim Ajioka. 'Growing the microorganism is a natural process, but we have modified it, to make the colours of other living organisms.' 'We get inspiration from nature - rather than extracting from nature,' says the other co-founder Orr Yarkoni. Their approach is so radical that it has been recognised royally in the UK. Colorifix became a finalist for the Earthshot Prize in 2023, a yearly contest led by Prince William to find the world's most promising environmental solutions. The Prize is often said to have been inspired by JFK's 'Moonshot' and was designed to incentivise tipping-point innovations. It has five categories, nature protection, clean air, oceans, climate and the one Colorifix competed in, waste-free solutions. Finalists receive mentorship and access to a network of global businesses, investors, and environmental organisations ready to help scale their ideas. The Prince visited the lab this week to praise founders Yarkoni and Ajioka on their science-led approach. 'It's really exciting and I know you're going to push into the industry very quickly,' he told the team. 'It's really exciting and I know you're going to push into the industry very quickly.' The microbial dye solution is already moving beyond the lab. In the last few years, it has received significant funding from highstreet brand H&M (here's a t-shirt dyed by Colorifix). H&M's innovation arm has invested in pilot dyeing projects in Portugal, where the startup's biologically grown pigments were used on items produced for both H&M and Pangaia. This marked one of the first real-world commercial applications of the technology. Today, Colorifix has just closed a $18 million Series B2 round, led by Inter IKEA Group, to fuel global commercial expansion. 'This investment marks a critical milestone as we shift from proving our technology to delivering it at industrial scale,' Yarkoni tells me. Colorifix has just closed a $18 million investment from IKEA to fuel global commercial expansion. Linn Clabburn from IKEA's innovation arm agrees. 'Colorifix is addressing one of the toughest sustainability challenges in textiles,' she says. Their progress in scaling this tech and entering new markets 'aligns well' with IKEA's ambitions to improve sustainability in the value chain, she adds. It's a vote of confidence not just in the science, but in the market's readiness for a pioneering solution. Unlike other sustainable alternatives that require entire factories to be revamped, Colorifix's process is essentially plug-and-play and compatible with existing industrial dyeing equipment. That means factories don't need to overhaul infrastructure to adopt it, which removes one of the biggest barriers to sustainable innovation: cost and complexity. The potential ripple effect is huge. If Colorifix can roll out its microbial dyeing process across fashion and homeware with some of the biggest household names, it could help detoxify one of the most water and chemical-intensive elements of garment production. Transforming a $2 trillion-dollar supply chain does not come without its challenges. Colorifix's technology may be simple to implement, but scaling it globally means convincing the big names this is the right idea for them, never mind navigating strict regulatory frameworks. Textile manufacturers, often operating on razor-thin margins, can be slow to adopt new methods - especially in regions where environmental protocols are lax and synthetic dyes remain cheap and abundant. Yet, momentum is building. Colorifix is already working with mills in Portugal, India and Brazil, with plans to expand into Southeast Asia, one of the largest dyeing hubs in the world. 'We are sure to make a difference.' And the prospects don't stop at fabric. The founders say their microbial process could one day be adapted for other industries like cosmetics and hair dye. When Prince William comes to visit a project like this, he isn't just there to tick a box. The Earthshot Prize was clearly designed to elevate this kind of bold, science-based solution with the power to transform entire systems. In fashion, that means anywhere we use colour, microbes could one day replace petrochemicals. 'Over the last few years, we have gone from grammes to tonnes of fabric per week,' says Yarkoni. 'We are sure to make a difference.'
Forbes
11 hours ago
- Forbes
Get Ready For The Shortest Day Since Records Began As Earth Spins Faster
Earth could be about to record its fastest-ever rotation. Since 2020, Earth has been rotating faster than at any point since records began in 1973, with each successive year producing the shortest day. Last year, the shortest day was recorded on July 5, and Earth is expected to get close to this again on or close to July 9, July 22 and August 5, according to "Rapidly spinning globe. Symbolic of time passing, travel and other metaphors of space and time." Earth takes a nominal 24 hours to rotate once on its access, which is equal to 86,400 seconds. Until 2020, Earth's rotation had been gradually slowing down, and the shortest ever day recorded was just 1.05 milliseconds under 86,400 seconds. However, on July 19, 2020, Earth rotated 1.47 milliseconds less than 86,400 seconds. Last year, on July 5, it was even shorter at 1.66 milliseconds. Since 2020, Earth has seen 28 of its fastest days and predictions from International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service and U.S. Naval Observatory indicate that Earth will again rotate faster on July 9, July 22 or August 5. The uncertainty comes from the exact position of the moon, which acts as a drag factor, particularly when it's close to the equator. In the long-term, the moon is gradually slowing down the Earth's rotation, its gravitational pull causing tides and making Earth's orbital path around the sun slightly elliptical. Precise measurements of the length of a day come from atomic clocks and monitoring by the IERS. Scientists do not know why Earth's rotation has been speeding up since 2020. various factors are likely at play, including the motion of Earth's core and mantle, a shifting of mass due to the melting of ice sheets and glaciers, and variations in ocean currents and air movement. All of these could influence the day length by milliseconds. It could also be down to the 'Chandler wobble' — the movement of Earth's geographical poles across its surface. Historically, international timekeepers have added leap seconds to keep atomic time aligned with Earth's spin. However, since Earth is now rotating faster, not slower, so leap seconds are redundant. Instead, negative leap seconds— i.e., removing a second) — are being considered. IERS confirmed earlier this month that no leap second would be added in 2025. The last leap second was positive and used at the end of December 2016. Scientists are unsure what to do because the current speeding-up may be a blip in a longer trend of Earth's rotation slowing. It may seem trivial, but the fact that Earth is spinning faster in 2025, shaving milliseconds off the day, is critical for maintaining time accuracy worldwide. Maintaining alignment between Earth time and atomic time is crucial for GPS and satellite navigation, financial systems reliant on precise timestamps and synchronizing networks across the world.
Medscape
13 hours ago
- Medscape
Muscle Gains vs Heart Strain: A Deadly Trade-off?
Sudden cardiac deaths (SCDs) appear to be more frequent among men who practice bodybuilding, particularly those competing at high levels. A global study of more than 20,000 athletes is the first to report the incidence of sudden death in this population. As the author noted in the European Heart Journal , the aim was not to demonize bodybuilding but to promote safer practices. Bodybuilding focuses on increasing muscle mass and definition through physical exercise and a targeted diet. Unlike traditional sports, bodybuilding competitions evaluate the aesthetics of the body rather than athletic performance. Researchers identified 20,286 men who had competed in the International Fitness and Bodybuilding Federation (IFBB) events between 2005 and 2020. Using web-based searches, they determined which athletes died. Over a mean follow-up period of 8.1 ± 3.8 years, there were 121 deaths. Among the 99 cases with documented causes, 73 were sudden. The mean age at the time of death was 45 years. Of the 55 nontraumatic sudden deaths — excluding those from car accidents, suicide, or homicide — 46 were classified as SCDs. The overall incidence of deaths (sudden and nonsudden) was 63.61 per 100,000 person-years. Among active competitors, those who died within 1 year of their last IFBB event, the rate rose to 80.58. The incidence of SCDs was 24.18 in the entire cohort and 32.83 among competing athletes, who had a mean age of just 35 years at death. Professional bodybuilders had a fivefold higher risk for SCD than recreational bodybuilders (hazard ratio, 5.23 [3.58-7.64]). Available autopsies showed the presence of cardiomegaly and severe ventricular hypertrophy in 4 out of 5 cases. Risk Factors The study pointed to a broader issue in addition to bodybuilders, which could also affect nonprofessional athletes who practice strength training. What are the possible causes? Univadis Italy , a Medscape Network platform, asked Marco Vecchiato, MD, a specialist and researcher in the Sports and Exercise Medicine Division at the University of Padua, Padua, Italy, and the coordinator of the study. 'Our study had epidemiological purposes and was not designed to identify, in a cause-effect manner, the mechanisms underlying these premature deaths. However, the literature in the field has advanced some plausible hypotheses, suggesting that a combination of factors could contribute significantly to the increased risk,' said Vecchiato. These include: Intense training regimens, such as high-intensity workouts, place major strain on the cardiovascular (CV) and muscular systems. Extreme dietary practices, such as high protein intake and repeated weight cycling between off-season and on-season periods, can place significant stress on metabolic and CV systems. Dehydration techniques, such as rapid fluid loss before events using hydro-saline protocols or diuretics, can be dangerous. The use of doping substances, especially anabolic steroids and similar agents, can severely harm the CV, kidneys, liver, and nervous system. Doping Impact 'It is important to underline that, to date, there are no studies that have exclusively investigated the risk for death and SCD in a population of bodybuilders with the guarantee of not taking doping substances. However, recent evidence published in first-time journals and with long-term monitoring suggested a clear difference in terms of cumulative mortality between athletes with and without a history of anabolic steroid abuse,' said Vecchiato. He noted that performance-enhancing drug use is likely to be widespread at the highest competitive levels. In the US, where bodybuilding is more structured and athletes face intense competitive and aesthetic pressure with serious psychophysical consequences, many athletes speak openly about the use of performance-enhancing drugs. However, in Italy, 'The issue remains mostly hidden and is often not perceived as a medical risk but as 'a necessary means' to obtain a certain physique,' he said. Uncertain Rules Athletes are generally required to undergo regular medical checkups, but does the same apply to bodybuilders? 'In Italy, there are numerous bodybuilding federations, each with its own rules and requirements for membership. Some of these clearly state the obligation to present a competitive sports medical certificate, while others do not mention any specific medical requirements, thus allowing membership even in the absence of a health assessment. In these cases, the activity is not formally classified as a sport but rather as an activity for aesthetic purposes, which allows you to bypass some obligations required for competitive sports, including medical certification,' Vecchiato explained. Although not formally required by regulations, a sports center or gym may still ask a bodybuilder to provide a noncompetitive medical certificate, often for insurance purposes. Under Italian law, such certification is not mandatory for individuals engaging in noncompetitive physical activity unless they are affiliated with a national sports federation or a sports promotion body recognized by the Italian National Olympic Committee, which oversees organized sports and fitness initiatives in the country. 'This heterogeneous regulatory situation means that some athletes are subjected to in-depth sports medical check-ups annually, including a baseline electrocardiogram, stress test, spirometry, urine test, and any further investigations of a higher order, while others receive an evaluation with only an electrocardiogram in resting conditions. Finally, a nonnegligible portion of subjects may never be subjected to any structured medical evaluation, not even when starting or continuing the activity practiced,' he said. 'The first contact with a doctor can therefore only occur after the onset of advanced signs or symptoms, sometimes linked to already structured CV or metabolic damage, making any form of secondary prevention potentially late,' he said. These signs warrant cardiologic or psychological evaluation. 'The general practitioner can play a key role in recognizing warning signs (excessive muscle hypertrophy, extreme weight fluctuations, suspected use of illicit substances, marked and sudden mood changes in the absence of diagnosed mental illnesses, gynecomastia, extensive acne in adults not present during puberty, etc.) and directing them towards cardiological or psychological investigations,' warned Vecchiato. He also noted that 15% of SCDs in this population were traumatic. Obsessive body transformation goals, extreme practices, and substance misuse increase the risk for impulsive or self-harming behavior. This reinforces the need to prioritize the mental health of athletes. Vecchiato concluded that 'in addition to an intensified antidoping practice, the introduction of targeted CV screening and educational campaigns could significantly reduce the associated risks.' Raising awareness can encourage athletes to adopt safer training and nutrition programs and diets, to be supervised by a physician, and to refuse doping.
