What are the Benefits of Natural Fibres?
Share
1. Introduction
Natural fibres are fibres that are produced from the bodies of plants or animals.[1] Humans' use of natural fibres dates back over 70,000 years, with humans first learning to weave plant-based fibres around 30,000 years ago.[2] With this, you could argue that wearing natural fibres is wired into our DNA, as our ancestors relied on these fibres for warmth and protection.
Some common examples of natural fibres used in modern day clothing include:
- Wool
- Cotton
- Bamboo
- Linen
Each fibre displays its own innate properties, such as thermoregulation or moisture management, making each one useful in its own way.
2. Performance Benefits
The performance benefits of natural fibres are well established in scientific literature. In this section, we focus on three key factors that make aerys' clothes the natural choice.
2.1: Thermoregulation & Breathability
Natural fibres such as wool, cotton, bamboo, and linen support thermoregulation through a combination of their intrinsic fibre structures and the way they are spun and formed into fabric. Features in the fibre structure such as wool’s crimp, cotton’s convolutions, bamboo’s micro-pores, and linen’s polygonal cross-section introduce air pockets throughout the fibre.[3][4] Further air-pockets are introduced during the processing of these fibres, as spinning, weaving and knitting form inter-yarn gaps within the fabric matrix.[5]
These air pockets govern the heat transfer characteristics of the fabrics, affecting conduction, convection and evaporation. The stationary air has extremely low thermal conductivity, forming a barrier against conduction.[6] Furthermore, due to the size of these air pockets (typically sub-millimetre) large convection currents that would otherwise carry heat away from the body are suppressed. Intriguingly, however, the open architecture of these fibres permits controlled venting of excess metabolic heat via small convective loops when the body overheats. In addition, the open structure allows high water vapour permeability, enabling sweat to migrate outward and evaporate from the fibre surface, where it absorbs latent heat from the skin to provide active cooling during warmer conditions.[7]
2.2: Skin & Hormone Health
It is easiest to highlight the benefits of natural fibres in clothing by first addressing the potential side effects of synthetics. Synthetic fibres are fibres made by humans through chemical processes. Common examples include Nylon, Acrylic or Polyester and almost all synthetics are petroleum-based.
The first negative of synthetic fibres is the shedding of microplastics. A 2024 study review on microplastics in dermatology found that microplastics can trigger inflammation and disturb skin homeostasis (the process of maintaining the skin's physiological balance).[8] In addition to this, a 2025 study showed that during exercise, athletes are more susceptible to the uptake of microplastics via inhalation, ingestion and skin contact.[9] Whilst research into microplastics is still limited, studies have linked them to oxidative stress and endocrine disruption.[10]
The second negative of synthetic fibres is the presence of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Additives such as plasticisers, antioxidants, flame retardants and surfactants are frequently added during the production of synthetic fibres to improve clothing performance. These additive types have been linked to reproductive toxicity, estrogenic mimicry & hormone signalling interference.[11] Furthermore, a 2008 study found that prolonged exposure to polyester clothing was associated with reduced fertility in dogs.[12] With global birth rates having declined steadily since the 1960s, the potential impact of synthetic materials on reproductive health should not be dismissed when considering factors that may influence fertility.[13]
3. Environmental Benefits
The use of natural fibres can significantly reduce the environmental impact; however, the benefits are heavily dependent on farming practices, processing, and garment use patterns.[14] In this article, we focus on the well-documented downsides of synthetic fibres, and the positives of organic cotton and bamboo, the fabrics chosen by aerys.
3.1: The Negatives of Synthetic Fibres
To begin, as previously discussed, microplastics released from synthetic fibres present well-established risks to human health and performance. Beyond these direct effects, apparel-derived microplastics represent a significant and persistent source of environmental contamination, with evidence showing that synthetic microfibre emissions to land rival those entering aquatic systems through garment washing and wastewater pathways.[15] Research on synthetic-dominant textile blends, such as polyester fabrics, further demonstrates that plastic-based fibres shed substantial quantities of microplastics during routine washing, contributing to cumulative contamination across water, soil and landfill environments.[16] Once released, these fibres persist and redistribute via wastewater treatment residues and biosolids, creating long-term ecological and toxicological risks due to their resistance to degradation.[17]
3.2: The Benefits of Organic Cotton & Bamboo
Both organic cotton and bamboo offer environmental advantages over synthetic, petroleum-derived fibres; however, the scale and magnitude of these benefits depend on cultivation practices, processing methods, energy sources and full life-cycle conditions. Life cycle assessment (LCA) studies indicate that, when produced under credible sustainability standards, natural fibres can reduce fossil resource use, global warming potential and ecotoxicity impacts relative to polyester-dominant systems.[14][18]
From a cultivation perspective, organic cotton is grown without synthetic fertilisers or pesticides, instead relying on crop rotation, biological pest control and organic soil amendments. Compared with conventional cotton systems, organic cultivation is associated with lower terrestrial ecotoxicity and reduced impacts linked to synthetic agrochemical production, particularly nitrogen fertilisers, which are a major contributor to nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions.[19][20] While total water and land use can remain significant, the removal of synthetic inputs reduces upstream fossil energy demand and supports improved soil structure and biodiversity outcomes.
Bamboo delivers environmental benefits primarily at the biomass and land-use level. It is a rapidly renewable grass, typically harvestable within 3–5 years, with high yield per hectare and strong carbon sequestration capacity. Harmonised LCA reviews of bamboo products report that when bamboo replaces carbon-intensive benchmark materials and when processing energy is decarbonised, overall global warming potential is frequently lower, with favourable land-use impacts relative to many conventional materials.[21][22]
4. Conclusions
The table below summarises the key trade-offs between synthetic and natural fibres discussed in this article. Ratings (Low/Medium/High) are qualitative and depend on specific fibre blends, fabric construction, processing chemistry and energy sources.
| Feature | Synthetic fibres (e.g., polyester/nylon) | Natural fibres (e.g., organic cotton/bamboo/wool/linen) |
|---|---|---|
| Moisture management | Low: polymers are typically hydrophobic, so sweat handling often relies on fabric engineering and chemical finishes rather than intrinsic fibre behaviour. | High: many natural fibres support water vapour permeability and moisture buffering through fibre morphology and fabric air gaps. |
| Breathability & thermoregulation | Medium: can be engineered for airflow, but low-permeability constructions can trap heat and odour. | High: fibre structures and yarn/fabric architecture create air pockets that support insulation when cool and venting when warm. |
| Microplastic pollution risk | High: routine wear and washing can shed persistent synthetic microfibres that accumulate across water, soil and landfill pathways. | Low: does not produce plastic microfibres; environmental impacts shift primarily to farming inputs and processing. |
| Dependence on fossil resources | High: petrochemical feedstocks and energy-intensive polymer production underpin most synthetic fibres. | Low: biogenic feedstocks reduce reliance on fossil carbon, though processing energy still contributes. |
| Ecotoxicity drivers | Medium–High: driven by additives (e.g., stabilisers, plasticisers) and persistent pollution pathways depending on product design. | Low: primarily linked to agricultural inputs (if non-organic) and processing chemistry; impacts vary by supply chain controls. |
Ready to experience natural performance? Shop aerys →
5. References
1. John, Maya Jacob; Thomas, Sabu (2008-02-08). “Biofibres and biocomposites”. Carbohydrate Polymers. 71(3): 343–364.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2007.05.040
2. Balter, M. (2009). “Clothes Make the (Hu) Man”. Science. 325(5946): 1329.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.325_1329a
3. Kim, H.A. (2023). Eco-Friendly Fibers Embedded Yarn Structure in High-Performance Fabrics to Improve Moisture Absorption and Drying Properties. Polymers (Basel). 15(3):581.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15030581
4. Kandemir, A.; Longana, M.L.; Panzera, T.H.; Del Pino, G.G.; Hamerton, I.; Eichhorn, S.J. (2021). Natural Fibres as a Sustainable Reinforcement Constituent in Aligned Discontinuous Polymer Composites Produced by the HiPerDiF Method. Materials (Basel). 14(8):1885.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14081885
5. Karimah, A.; Ridho, M.R.; Munawar, S.S.; et al. (2021). A Comprehensive Review on Natural Fibers: Technological and Socio-Economical Aspects. Polymers (Basel). 13(24):4280.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13244280
6. Bhatt, D. (2008). Impact on properties of woven fabric from structurally modified shoddy/wool blended worsted yarn. Journal of Textile and Apparel Technology and Management. 6(2):1–10.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17223/95986002
7. Peng, Y.C.; Cui, Y. (2024). Thermal management with innovative fibers and textiles: manipulating heat transport, storage and conversion. National Science Review. 11(10):nwae295.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwae295
8. Aristizabal M, Jiménez-Orrego KV, Caicedo-León MD, et al. (2024). Microplastics in dermatology: Potential effects on skin homeostasis. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. 23(3):766–772.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.16167
9. Jiao X, Cao Q, Deng Z. (2025). Microplastics and exercise: impacts on performance and physiological health. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. 7:1611255. Published August 19, 2025.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2025.1611255
10. Nawab A, Ahmad M, Khan MT, et al. (2024). Human exposure to microplastics: A review on exposure routes and public health impacts. Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances. 16:100487.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazadv.2024.100487
11. Chen Y, Chen Q, Zhang Q, et al. (2022). An Overview of Chemical Additives on (Micro)Plastic Fibers: Occurrence, Release, and Health Risks. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 260(1):22.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44169-022-00023-9
12. Shafik A. (2008). An experimental study on the effect of different types of textiles on conception. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 28(2):213–216.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610801912535
13. World Bank. Fertility rate, total (births per woman). Indicator: SP.DYN.TFRT.IN. Source: United Nations Population Division, World Population Prospects.
URL: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN
14. Gonzalez V, Lou X, Chi T. (2023). Evaluating environmental impact of natural and synthetic fibers: A life cycle assessment approach. Sustainability. 15(9):7670. Pages 1–16. Published May 2023.
URL: https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i9p7670-d1141177.html
15. Gavigan J, Kefela T, Macadam-Somer I, Suh S, Geyer R. (2020). Synthetic microfiber emissions to land rival those to waterbodies and are growing. PLoS One. 15(9):e0237839. Published September 16, 2020.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237839
16. Zhang Y, Haque ANMA, Ranjbar S, Tester D, Naebe M. (2025). Decoding microplastic shedding from cotton/polyester blends: An analysis through fiber identification. Environmental Pollution. 383:126909.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2025.126909
17. Sait STL, Sørensen L, Kubowicz S, et al. (2021). Microplastic fibres from synthetic textiles: Environmental degradation and additive chemical content. Environmental Pollution. 268(Pt B):115745.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115745
18. Chen S, Zhu L, Sun L, Huang Q, Zhang Y, Li X, Ye X, Li Y, Wang L. (2023). A systematic review of the life cycle environmental performance of cotton textile products. Science of The Total Environment. 883:163659.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163659
19. Textile Exchange. (2025). The Life Cycle Assessment of Organic Cotton Fiber – Global Average Summary.
URL: https://textileexchange.org/app/uploads/2025/01/the-life-cycle-assessment-of-organic-cotton-fiber_38172.pdf
20. Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS). Organic Cotton: Less Environmental Damage than Conventional Cotton.
URL: https://global-standard.org/news/new-lca-from-te-organic-cotton-proven-to-cause-less-environmental-damage-than-conventional-cotton
21. Vogtländer JG, van der Lugt P, Brezet HC. (2010). Environmental Assessment of Industrial Bamboo Products: Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Sequestration. TU Delft, Delft University of Technology.
URL: https://research.tudelft.nl/en/publications/environmental-assessment-of-industrial-bamboo-products-life-cycle
22. Sillanpää M, Ncibi MC, Matilainen A, Vepsäläinen M. (2022). Life cycle assessment of bamboo products: Review and harmonization. Science of the Total Environment.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154146