We’ve been spotlighting microplastics and the ecological consequence of microfiber shedding due to laundering synthetic clothing at home. Is professional dry cleaning any safer for our planet and our health? Are environmental dry cleaners a real thing?
What’s the dirt on dry cleaning?
Clothing labels on fabrics such as wool and silk typically indicate that dry cleaning is required to effectively remove grime and stains without damaging or shrinking fragile fibers. Unfortunately, dry cleaning has traditionally used hazardous chemicals. These liquid solvents can cause air, water, and soil contamination, which can cause health problems, not just for the people who work around the chemicals in dry cleaning businesses but the general public.
Historically, two common solvents in the dry cleaning industry have been highly toxic and required a license for usage and disposal. These include perchloroethylene, also known as PCE or simply as perc, and trichloroethylene (TCE), both highly toxic carcinogens. Through misuse or accidental spills, perc can leak down through cement beneath dry cleaners and pollute soil and groundwater. Perc can also transform, or volatilize, from a liquid into a gas and seep back up vertically through cracks in foundations or sidewalks into primary and neighboring properties.
According to the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, these chemicals have been linked to respiratory ailments, several cancers, particularly of the bladder and kidney, and cause damage to reproductive organs, the nervous system, and the immune system.
In 2024, Center for Health Journalism published an article that said studies estimate at least 75% of dry cleaners have perc contamination under their businesses and the plumes can stretch for miles under homes, businesses, and hospitals. Traditional dry cleaning, which requires heating solvents to clean clothes, is also energy-intensive and contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) issued a statewide ban on Perc in 2023, and the Toxic Substances Control Act under the EPA issued federal bans on TCE by September 2025.
What about “environmentally friendly” dry cleaners?
Dry cleaners must phase out of these toxic solvents and switch to safer alternatives, usually professional wet cleaning (PWC) methods, which mix primary solvents like water or CO2 with eco-friendly detergents. Compared to toxic solvents like Perc and TCE, these biodegradable solvents are a safer option for public health and minimize harmful chemicals that contaminate the environment. Some dry cleaning businesses feel betrayed by the state for issuing mandates to switch solvents and equipment after having given very few guidelines for so many years, and they resent having to make expensive changes or risk facing stiff clean-up fines.
Categories of safer solvents for green dry cleaners:
Wet Cleaning is similar to home laundering but uses closely monitored, computerized washers and dryers designed for delicate fabrics. Detergents use as little water as possible and limit absorption to the fabric’s surface. The EPA recognizes wet cleaning as one of the most environmentally friendly options available today. Despite its name, the “wet cleaning” method actually uses significantly less water than traditional dry cleaning methods and clothes dry more quickly, thereby using less energy consumption. Because wet cleaning is gentler on clothing than traditional dry cleaning, it extends their lifespan and decreases demand for replacing clothes more often.
Liquid carbon dioxide forces CO2 -- a naturally occurring, non-toxic, non-flammable gas used in many foods, drinks, and household products -- along with mild detergents through garments under high pressure. Liquid CO2 dissolves dirt and grease at room temperature in closed-loop machines and is then recovered, filtered, and reused. C02 effectively cleans delicate garments like silk and cashmere without leaving residue; is safer for the environment because it avoids harsh chemicals, hazardous emissions, and wastewater; and doesn’t require high heat, making it a more energy-efficient alternative. The caveat is that CO2 cleaning requires specialized, expensive, high-pressure machines that may be too cost prohibitive for many dry cleaning businesses.
Silicon-based solvents, also known as Si02, siloxane, or D5, basically means liquified sand that, once used, breaks down into harmless water, sand, and carbon dioxide. Although no chemicals touch your clothes, the downside of siloxane, also referred to as the GreenEarth cleaning method, is that it uses chlorine, which releases carcinogenic dioxin during the manufacturing process.
Hydrocarbon solvents such as DF-2000 have a carbon chain, so dry cleaners will promote them as being “organic” or “natural,” but these hydrocarbons are produced from petroleum, so this labeling is misleading to customers and should require more transparency. Hydrocarbons are considered VOC (volatile organic compounds) that contribute to ozone (smog) formation, which is linked to respiratory problems. Hydrocarbon solvents produce greenhouse gas emissions that must be managed by California’s strict air quality regulations. Although a step up from perc, hydrocarbon solvents are considered to be the least “green” dry cleaning method.
Which methods do truly eco-friendly dry cleaners use?
Of the four “eco-friendly” methods above, only wet cleaning and liquid carbon dioxide do not directly or indirectly pollute the environment and are considered truly safe and not merely a “green washing” ploy.
Some green dry cleaners also recycle wastewater and reuse hangers brought back by customers. You can ask your local dry cleaner what methods they use to prioritize sustainability. All and all, truly green dry cleaners are the way to go and merit your business!
Sources and Further Reading:
Photo by Nathan Dumlao on Unsplash
https://greenercleaner.net/professional-wet-cleaning/
https://greenercleaner.net/professional-wet-cleaning/
https://www.coolclean.com/industries/additional-applications/co2-dry-cleaning/
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/trichloroethylene.pdf
Replies