Next Article in Journal
Protection of Zr Alloy under High-Temperature Air Oxidation: A Multilayer Coating Approach
Previous Article in Journal
Phytotoxic Evaluation of Phytosynthesized Silver Nanoparticles on Lettuce
Article

Comparison of the Technical Performance of Leather, Artificial Leather, and Trendy Alternatives

FILK Freiberg Institute gGmbH, Meißner Ring 1, 09599 Freiberg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Coatings 2021, 11(2), 226; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11020226
Received: 25 January 2021 / Revised: 10 February 2021 / Accepted: 11 February 2021 / Published: 13 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Functional Polymer Coatings and Films)
The market for biogenic and synthetic alternatives to leather is increasing aiming to replace animal-based materials with vegan alternatives. In parallel, bio-based raw materials should be used instead of fossil-based synthetic raw materials. In this study, a shoe upper leather and an artificial leather, and nine alternative materials (Desserto®, Kombucha, Pinatex®, Noani®, Appleskin®, Vegea®, SnapPap®, Teak Leaf®, and Muskin®) were investigated. We aimed to compare the structure and technical performance of the materials, which allows an estimation of possible application areas. Structure and composition were characterized by microscopy and FTIR spectroscopy, the surface properties, mechanical performance, water vapor permeability, and water absorption by standardized physical tests. None of the leather alternatives showed the universal performance of leather. Nevertheless, some materials achieved high values in selected properties. It is speculated that the grown multilayer structure of leather with a very tight surface and a gradient of the structural density over the cross-section causes this universal performance. To date, this structure could neither be achieved with synthetic nor with bio-based materials. View Full-Text
Keywords: leather; synthetic leather; apparel; consumer good; leather alternative leather; synthetic leather; apparel; consumer good; leather alternative
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Meyer, M.; Dietrich, S.; Schulz, H.; Mondschein, A. Comparison of the Technical Performance of Leather, Artificial Leather, and Trendy Alternatives. Coatings 2021, 11, 226. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11020226

AMA Style

Meyer M, Dietrich S, Schulz H, Mondschein A. Comparison of the Technical Performance of Leather, Artificial Leather, and Trendy Alternatives. Coatings. 2021; 11(2):226. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11020226

Chicago/Turabian Style

Meyer, Michael, Sascha Dietrich, Haiko Schulz, and Anke Mondschein. 2021. "Comparison of the Technical Performance of Leather, Artificial Leather, and Trendy Alternatives" Coatings 11, no. 2: 226. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11020226

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop