Difference between revisions of "Leather alternatives"

From www.leather-dictionary.com - The Leather Dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 23: Line 23:
 
The focus of the [[leather quality|comparative study]] was on the tensile strength, tear resistance, flex resistance, water vapor permeability and the water vapor absorption
 
The focus of the [[leather quality|comparative study]] was on the tensile strength, tear resistance, flex resistance, water vapor permeability and the water vapor absorption
  
The result: None of the leather alternatives examined could keep up with the [[leather quality|universal properties]] of [[genuine leather]]. Some materials achieved respectable results in individual test areas, but overall the performance of real leather was higher and is not matched by any alternative. In particular, the stability and durability of leather was unattainable for the alternative materials. So far, no alternative material has been able to match the extraordinary properties of the structure of animal skin.
+
The result: None of the leather alternatives examined could keep up with the [[leather quality|universal properties]] of [[genuine leather]]. Some materials achieved respectable results in individual test areas, but overall, the performance of real leather was higher and is not matched by any alternative. In particular, the stability and durability of leather was unattainable for the alternative materials. So far, no alternative material has been able to match the extraordinary properties of the structure of animal skin.
  
  

Revision as of 20:33, 21 December 2022

LEATHER-DICTIONARY.jpg


Veganes-Leder.jpg


Research report from the research institute FILK on leather alternatives

In 2021, the research institute FILK published a research report in which leather with possible leather alternatives was examined for their technical properties. Title: „Comparison of the Technical Performance of Leather, Artificial Leather, and Trendy Alternatives”.

In this research work, a wide variety of leather alternatives were compared with the natural product leather. The product names or brands of the examined materials: Desserto®, Kombucha, Pinatex®, Noani® (= no animal), Appleskin®, Vegea®, SnapPap®, Teak Leaf®, und Muskin®. All materials of these brands are already available in free trade.

The materials examined consist of bio-substances and synthetic substances and aim to replace the tanned animal skin with a vegan alternative. A shoe upper leather competed against a synthetic leather and the leather alternatives listed above in this comparison of technical performance.

  • Variant 1 of the leather alternatives: The attempt to produce leather alternatives from almost exclusively biological substances. For example, mushrooms are used for this. Brands like Muskin or Mylo are going this route.
  • Variant 2 of the leather alternatives: Artificial leather manufacturers try to mix biomaterials into their plastic raw materials. Organic waste is used almost exclusively for this purpose. Leftovers from the wine press (wine leather), apple juice production (Vegea®, Appleskin®) or even cactus leaves (Desserto®) are milled and mixed in.
  • Variant 3 of the leather alternatives: Natural fibers from plants (Piñatex) are processed into a kind of fleece material and are then coated.

The focus of the comparative study was on the tensile strength, tear resistance, flex resistance, water vapor permeability and the water vapor absorption

The result: None of the leather alternatives examined could keep up with the universal properties of genuine leather. Some materials achieved respectable results in individual test areas, but overall, the performance of real leather was higher and is not matched by any alternative. In particular, the stability and durability of leather was unattainable for the alternative materials. So far, no alternative material has been able to match the extraordinary properties of the structure of animal skin.


Additional information


Colourlock-GB-03.jpg

WE UNDERSTAND LEATHER - WWW.COLOURLOCK.COM