An Artisan Journey in Search of Eco-Sustainability

 

0. Can we print Ecologically?

In our printing workshop, we have experimented with many techniques, but they all start from the same reality: fabric printing¹ has an environmental impact.

Our research stems from the desire to reduce it as much as possible, while maintaining the quality and artisanal precision that distinguish us.

To do this, we analyzed various clothing printing techniques, evaluating their consumption, waste, and management of chemical residues. Among these, traditional screen printing proved to be the most critical, especially due to the amount of water required and the difficulty of properly disposing of the wash water from the screens; and industry studies, listed in the bibliography, agree with this statement.

From here began a journey of experimentation: understanding what alternatives can offer the same aesthetic result and product durability, but with a more sustainable impact on the environment.

Today, after three years of experimentation, we have arrived at the "Eco-Paper DTF" printing technique, a technology that allows us to maintain high quality standards, garment durability comparable to screen printing, significantly reducing waste and environmental contamination.

Our goal is simple: not only to print on ecological materials - such as recycled cotton and fruit residues - but also to print in a more eco-sustainable way.

I. The Problem with "Classic" Screen Printing

We began our artisan journey as screen printers: using "classic" screens for our prints. As mentioned above, even if carried out in strict compliance with current regulations (i.e., Legislative Decree 152/2006 – Environmental Consolidated Law, which incorporates various EU directives, in particular Directive 2000/60/EC – "Water Framework Directive"), screen washing is a particularly critical step.

In an attempt to understand if there was a way to lower our environmental impact, we approached various types of inks.

1.1 The Problem of Plastic-Based Inks

Plastic-based inks were the first we experimented with. Because they are the most commonly used in fabric screen printing, widely appreciated by both large productions and local screen printers. These inks have three production advantages: they do not dry unless subjected to high temperatures (so they do not dry during production), the print is durable, and it is very popular with customers due to its tactile consistency.

However, these inks hide very serious pitfalls

They contain vinyl resins (PVC), plasticizers, pigments, and chlorinated additives, and during screen washing, even filtered water properly delivered to disposal centers contains extremely contaminating agents. These compounds form persistent emulsions that are not removed by normal filtration systems. The residues release toxic substances and heavy metals over time that accumulate in sediments and aquatic organisms. Even after treatment, the water retains an invisible but active fraction of pollutants, making the effluent dangerous for the aquatic environment.

1.2 An Insufficient Resolution: Water-Based Inks

It became necessary for us to experiment with screen printing using less polluting inks, even if they were more difficult to handle. So we switched to water-based fabric inks.

... And we discovered that they too hide pitfalls

Although much less polluting, this type of ink dries very quickly, which requires more frequent screen washing.

Furthermore, water-based screen printing inks for washable fabrics, although solvent-free, are not harmless when diluted in cleaning water. The acrylic or polyurethane polymer dispersions that compose them release plastic micro-residues and persistent compounds that are not removed by conventional filtration systems. Synthetic pigments, often containing metals or azo bonds, also bind to the sludge and continue to release toxic substances over time. "Treated" water therefore retains an invisible amount of contaminants.

II. Disposable Screens

Since we had identified the cleaning of inked screens as the main environmental problem, we thought of a solution with disposable screens, so as not to have to wash them and bypass the circumstance altogether.

2.1 Screen Engraving

We therefore opted to create screen printing frames with a laser engraver specifically for each printing session, instead of using a bromograph², to be used with the least polluting water-based inks available. The limitation of this technique is that, accustomed to the almost eternal durability of traditional screens, we overestimated its real potential. Nothing to say about the engravers, which allowed us to grow in skill and understanding of the craft; however, the game would only have been worth the candle if the amount of "wasted" ink that ended up in the bin along with the exhausted screens — instead of in water — had been significantly less than what we actually managed to achieve.

It was still worth trying - exploring every facet of screen printing thoroughly - before saying goodbye to it

III. Other Less Polluting Printing Techniques

So we asked ourselves if screen printing was the only way for us. After all, we had already learned that a path isn't necessarily right just because everyone else follows it.

3.1 "Block Printing"

The first alien experiment for us was block printing. This is an ancient technique in which a design is carved into a block of wood, rubber, or linoleum, transforming it into a matrix capable of printing endless artisan replicas. Once carved, the block is inked and pressed onto fabric or paper, creating images with a unique, imperfect, and vibrant character. This technique combines manual skill, rhythm, and attention to detail, giving life to prints that carry the beauty of the repeated artistic gesture by hand.

From an environmental point of view, it was a breakthrough: block printing carried out with water-based inks is - in our opinion - something close to perfection: it brings with it the advantages of all the "variants" of screen printing tried so far, combined.

• It allows the use of water-based inks because even if they dry, nothing happens, which was the advantage of disposable screens;
• It allows the same support to be reused indefinitely, because it is indestructible.

However, we encountered 3 general problems:

1. Being an extremely "rough" printing technique in artistic terms and not very precise, it is only suitable for specific types of printing.

2. It was extremely difficult to create multi-color designs.

3. The slowness of the process is at least 3 times that of screen printing.

To which a new problem was added, specifically ours: we were halfway through creating an exclusive collection, and this collection had artistic characteristics incompatible with block printing. We therefore had to choose whether to start over to rethink our artistic framework in terms of style and rendering, or to continue our journey to discover new printing techniques.

We are happy to have experimented and learned this technique - which we have kept for some designs - but our future is elsewhere

3.2 "DTG" Printing

So we asked ourselves if the future of the modern small artisan is exclusively analog. And we cast a timid glance at the digital side of the coin.

"DTG" allows ink to be applied directly to the fabric, like a modified inkjet printer, enabling detailed and colorful prints without the need for screens or matrices.

Initially hesitant, we discovered an interesting reality: zero waste, zero supports. Of course, the trade-off was the purchase of machinery totally beyond our reach, and sleepless nights to learn how to get to know it like a specialized technician.

Needless to say, the merits of this technique for those whose goal is not to pollute water with ink are infinite, since water is not even seen with binoculars. However, even in this case, we encountered problems:

1. Buying one of these brand new machines was not within our means, so we opted for something old and used. As technology is constantly changing, the difference in terms of efficiency between what we could do with ours and what is possible today with one of these new machines is an abyss. So we ended up with a tool that was even slower than block printing, and that kept jamming.
2. In addition to being unsustainably slow, it is also probably the most expensive printing technique that exists.
3. Finally, as a purely selfish element, direct printing, performed by a machine alone, took away the magic of creation.

Beautiful, clean, completely and magically eco-sustainable - but also extremely slow, expensive, and therefore out of our reach

3.3 "DTF" Printing

We had already put one foot in the digital world, so it was worth continuing the journey by putting the other in, and discovering what "DTF" had to offer us.

The DTF printer allows printing on special film using water-based inks; once printed, they can be heat transferred to the fabric.

Apart from the initial hurdle of understanding its operation and maintenance, which was as difficult as DTG, its merits were the same: no ink spills into the water, general cleanliness of the process, zero pollutants dispersed. It also had the following advantages over DTG:

1. It is less expensive,
2. It is less slow, although it will never be as fast and efficient as single-color screen printing,
3. It unleashes the artisan's imagination, for two reasons:

• The creation of transfers is not something the machine does autonomously: there are a thousand possibilities for variation, even from one printing session to another - as well as from one design to another. For example, if you increase the oven temperature, the ink "coagulates" in a certain way rather than another; if the color is mixed little and has less pigment, the print will have artistically sensational streaks.
• Once the transfers are created, the product is not finished: it moves on to the hand-pressing phase. And here too, every choice, every variation, of what is technically called "double-pressing" determines an outcome, desired or not, that follows the creative flow.

It all seems magnificent, but there's a huge problem: every print requires a sheet of plastic, which is recyclable, but using plastic goes completely against what we're trying to do.

...If only we could print DTF on recyclable paper

IV. Where we are now: Eco DTP

The title speaks for itself: combining the advantages of DTF printing with maximum sustainability, thanks to a completely recyclable paper support, is the point we have reached so far in our journey as eco-artisans.

It was not a simple achievement: until last year there were no manufacturers of paper rolls compatible with DTF printing, and even today it is a pioneering and rare material, intended only for those willing to seek it out diligently.

We are therefore doubly satisfied that our - for now - endpoint, the "Eco DTP", offers a quality equal to, and in some respects even superior to, our starting point, "Plastisol Screen Printing", while surpassing it in terms of environmental sustainability, which has brought us closer to our greatest goal.

Not an endpoint: but a new beginning

V. The Future: Research into More Sustainable Inks

And now? What else can we do to improve further?

Now that the printing process has reached a good level of eco-sustainability, generating no waste or pollutants, our goal is to make the finished product truly recyclable.

As you may have noticed, our bags, notebooks, clutches, and sweatshirts are already made from recycled materials, or with percentages thereof; however, printing makes it more difficult to ensure they can be transformed into something else once their life cycle is exhausted.

For this reason, our efforts are now focused on studying methods that allow us to create Eco DTP prints that do not hinder the return of our products to the recycling circuit.

To succeed, we will need to delve into two areas of chemistry:

1. That of inks and pigments, in search of a combination that maintains maximum yield without compromising the possibility, tomorrow, of giving new life to materials through recycling.
2. That of materials for ink adhesion to fabric.

Thank you very much for accompanying us on this journey with your support

 

Footnotes

I. Predominantly synthetic fabrics are not part of our research path, as we prefer — for environmental reasons — to focus on natural, recycled, or recyclable fabrics and supports.

To be fair, we point out that fabrics with a polyester percentage higher than 50% can be printed with the sublimation technique. This is one of the printing techniques with the lowest environmental impact, as — in addition to sublimatic paper, of which recyclable versions are available on the market — it does not use water or solvents and therefore generates very little production waste.

The challenge of Gnostic Tower is to be able to print in an equally ecological way, but on non-synthetic fabrics and supports, or on materials that contain only a minimal amount of plastic fibers. In fact, in our products we prefer to use natural fabrics, such as 100% cotton for t-shirts, blends with a majority percentage of organic or recycled cotton and reduced quantities of recycled polyester for sweatshirts, or organic recycled materials such as food waste derived from fruit mixed with paper for our notebooks. All these materials are not compatible with sublimation.

2. The exposure unit is a tool that allows a photosensitive emulsion to be etched onto a screen printing frame using UV light, transforming a printed sheet into a matrix ready for printing. Inside its light chamber, the emulsion polymerizes everywhere it is not covered by the film, thus creating open areas through which the ink will pass.

Bibliography

Scientific Bibliography

Aldegunde-Louzao, N., Lolo-Aira, M., & Herrero-Latorre, C. (2024). Phthalate esters in clothing: A review. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 108, 104457.

Aydemir, C., & Ayhan Özsoy, S. (2020). Environmental impact of printing inks and printing process. Journal of Graphic Engineering and Design, 11(2), 11–17.

Azanaw, A., Birlie, B., Teshome, B., & Jemberie, M. (2022). Textile effluent treatment methods and eco-friendly resolution of textile wastewater. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering, 6(6), 100230.

Bisschops, I., & Spanjers, H. (2003). Literature review on textile wastewater characterisation. Environmental Technology, 24(11), 1399–1411.

Dhameliya, K. B., & Ambasana, C. (2023). Assessment of wastewater contaminants caused by textile industries. Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology, 17(3), 1477–1485.

Ding, S., Li, X., Qiao, X., Liu, Y., Wang, H., & Ma, C. (2024). Identification and screening of priority pollutants in printing and dyeing industry wastewater and the importance of these pollutants in environmental management in China. Environmental Pollution, 362, 124938.

Glogar, M., Petrak, S., & Mahnić Naglić, M. (2025). Digital technologies in the sustainable design and development of textiles and clothing—A literature review. Sustainability, 17(4), 1371.

Hoque, S. M. A., Chapman, L. P., Moore, M., Lavelle, J., Saloni, D., & Woodbridge, J. (2024). Environmental sustainability analysis of rotary-screen printing and digital textile printing. AATCC Journal of Research, 11(1).

Kujanpää, M., & Nors, M. (2014). Environmental performance of future digital textile printing. VTT Customer Report VTT-CR-04462-14. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo.

Hooda, S. (2025). Eco-friendly advances in textile printing: A review. International Journal of Home Science, 11(1), 585–588.

Bisht, K., Gurusamy, M., & Ghosh, S. (2025). Digital printing in textiles: Navigating the new frontier of customization and sustainability. Asian Textile Journal, 34(2), 34–39.

Government Reports and Regulations

Council of the European Communities. (1991). Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 135, 40–52.

European Parliament and Council. (2006). Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). Official Journal of the European Union, L 396, 1–849.

European Parliament and Council. (2008). Directive 2008/98/EC on waste and repealing certain Directives (Waste Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union, L 312, 3–30.

European Parliament and Council. (2010). Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control). Official Journal of the European Union, L 334, 17–119.

European Parliament and Council. (2019). Directive (EU) 2019/904 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment. Official Journal of the European Union, L 155, 1–19.

Repubblica Italiana. (2006). Decreto Legislativo 3 aprile 2006, n. 152 – Norme in materia ambientale (Codice dell’Ambiente). Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, n. 88, Suppl. Ordinario n. 96.

Repubblica Italiana. (1999). Decreto Legislativo 11 maggio 1999, n. 152 – Disposizioni sulla tutela delle acque dall’inquinamento e recepimento della Direttiva 91/271/CEE. Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, n. 124.

Roth, J., Zerger, B., De Geeter, D., Gómez Benavides, J. and Roudier, S. (2023) Best available techniques (BAT) reference document for the Textiles Industry, Publications Office of the European Union.