Pigment Ink in Textile Printing: Outlook, Sustainability and Fastness

The opportunity is a shorter, more flexible production route

In textile pigment printing, insoluble colour particles are secured on the fabric by a fixation system, usually involving a polymer binder. A suitable process can serve cotton, cellulosic fabrics and blends without depending on the fibre-specific affinity of a dye. This article focuses on direct-to-fabric digital printing, including garments and roll goods; transfer printing has its own adhesive and finishing requirements.

Industrial investment gives a more useful indication of direction than an unsupported market-growth forecast. Epson’s ML-13000, presented at Drupa 2024, integrates pigment inks with selectively applied pre- and post-treatment chemicals. Their laydown is adjusted for the fabric, design and end use. The advance is integration of the printing chemistry and workflow; the treatment chemistry has not disappeared. [1]

The strongest prospects are jobs that benefit from frequent design changes, small orders and a varied fabric mix: on-demand apparel, cotton-rich blends, interior textiles and replenishment programmes. The commercial test is whether flexibility and reduced finishing complexity compensate for ink, treatment, curing and maintenance costs while meeting the buyer’s specification.

Pigment will continue to compete with established dye routes. Reactive dye printing remains a useful reference for soft cellulosic textiles; disperse systems remain important for polyester. Our pigment-versus-disperse comparison examines that substitution question. Here the focus is the environmental and durability evidence needed to win a particular textile application.

The environmental advantage starts with the process boundary

Many appropriately designed pigment workflows can omit the steaming and dye wash-off stages used in reactive or acid dye printing. That can reduce process-water demand and the associated drying and wastewater-treatment burden. It does not mean every pigment route is water-free, heat-free or free of treatment chemicals.

A useful quantified example appears in Epson’s Sustainability Report 2024. A commissioned comparison for a fabric run measuring 1.5 m × 300 m reported water use of 8.64 m³ for rotary-screen dye printing, 6.78 m³ for its ML-32000 digital dye route and 0.24 m³ for its ML-13000 digital pigment route. The last figure is about 97% lower than the rotary-screen dye reference. The report attributes the comparison to Furuhashi Environmental Institute in January 2024 and notes that conditions affect results. These are specific process-water figures, not a universal pigment-ink saving or a garment’s full life-cycle water footprint. [2]

Research also points to applications beyond conventional printed motifs. DITF’s DENIMPRINT project explored digitally printing the final denim appearance onto cellulosic substrates, including worn visual effects. The institute reports that binder fixation avoided subsequent washing in the developed route, while suitable fabric preparation and printing conditions were still part of the work. This is evidence of a particular application opportunity, rather than a claim that every denim process can be replaced unchanged. [3]

For a mill, an environmental comparison should include water used in preparation and cleaning, dryer and curing energy, treatment chemicals, rejected fabric and rework. Compare equivalent accepted fabric, at the same shade coverage and performance requirement. A shorter process that needs repeated reprinting may lose part of its apparent advantage.

Water-based describes the vehicle, not the complete safety or environmental profile. The pigment, binder, auxiliaries, residual substances and finished article still need the appropriate assessments. Product lifetime matters too: avoiding premature fading or print loss is part of making a resource-efficient textile.

Water-insoluble pigment does not automatically make a washable print

The pigment may resist dissolution while colour is still lost through damage to its fixation layer or abrasion of the printed surface. Washing durability therefore belongs to the complete combination of pigment, binder, fabric preparation, ink coverage and cure.

ISO 105-C06 addresses colour fastness to domestic and commercial laundering under defined procedures. A useful report identifies the selected procedure and conditions, with colour change and staining results. A single grade should not be converted into an unrestricted promise of a particular number of consumer washes. Different detergents, bleach systems and mechanical action change the exposure. [4]

Dekanić and colleagues’ 2025 study examined blue digitally pigment-printed cotton under different washing conditions. After five washes, detergent formulation and temperature affected the measured colour changes. Powder products containing optical brighteners caused the largest changes in that experiment. The authors favoured washing at 40°C with detergents without optical brighteners for their samples. This is a material-specific finding that supports realistic care testing; it is not a universal care label for pigment-printed textiles. [5]

Binder selection also deserves direct trials. Şahin and Tufan compared twelve binder/catalyst preparation recipes before CMYK inkjet printing on cotton twill. Their washing, light and rubbing results did not move together as a single property. The study supports evaluating the fixation system on the actual fabric, rather than copying a binder percentage or inferring all fastness properties from one successful wash test. [6]

Lightfastness is a separate requirement from washing durability

A print that survives detergent can still change colour under light. For a textile programme, lightfastness should be established for the individual colours and relevant mixtures at the actual printed depths. A dark solid, a pastel tint and a neutral made from several colours are different qualification samples.

ISO 105-B02 uses xenon-arc artificial light representative of daylight and compares colour response using specified references. Reports need the method details and reference system, not simply “UV resistant.” A lightfastness result should not be translated directly into years beside a window or outdoors. [7]

Outdoor exposure adds moisture and weathering. ISO 105-B04 addresses artificial weathering and can examine the combined effect of light and water; it also distinguishes its scope from testing permanently exposed technical textiles. Apparel, curtains, upholstery and outdoor graphics therefore need end-use-specific exposure plans. Passing a colour-fading test alone does not establish the mechanical service life of the fabric. [8]

Wet rubbing is often where the formulation trade-off becomes visible

Rubbing tests ask whether colour transfers to another material during contact. ISO 105-X12 distinguishes dry and wet rubbing. These results answer a different question from colour retained during laundering and should be reported separately. [9]

EFI’s published TERRA brochure provides a concrete historical example. Its 1200 dpi CMYK data refer to cotton poplin fixed inline at 160°C for three minutes. The manufacturer reported washing and light results as shown below, while wet rubbing varied by colour. The brochure is dated 2019, and its figures describe that test system—not current industry-wide performance or AIC product results. [10]

Hand feel must be assessed alongside durability. Adding or changing a fixation layer can change the way a fabric bends, stretches and feels. A cotton pigment screen-printing study by İkiz and colleagues found that formulation and curing affected wash and rubbing behaviour; a silicone softener improved handle but reduced fastness in their experiments. This is evidence of the trade-off in that screen-printing system, not an inkjet recipe or a rule that every softener is detrimental. [11]

The development task is to secure the required adhesion with a film and process appropriate to the product. For activewear that may include stretch and recovery; for upholstery it includes repeated surface contact. A very durable but unacceptably stiff print can still fail the customer’s brief.

Where pigment ink can gain the most ground

Cotton and cellulosic textiles offer opportunities in apparel, fashion and interior products where the process can meet both colour and handle requirements. Blends are attractive because a surface-fixed colour system can simplify the fabric portfolio, although different constructions and finishes still need separate trials.

Polyester is a real but more specialised opportunity. Kornit’s 2019 NeoPoly announcement described a dedicated ink set and low-temperature process designed for polyester, including control of dye migration from the base fabric. This illustrates the need for substrate-specific engineering. It does not make a generic pigment formulation interchangeable with every polyester printing system. [12]

For a new programme, a practical approval sequence is:

1. Define the saleable textile. Record fibre blend, construction, fabric finish, target shade, hand feel, care conditions and end use.
2. Record the complete process. Include treatment and ink laydown, drying, measured fabric temperature, residence time and any finishing. Dryer setpoint alone does not establish the fabric’s cure history.
3. Test separate failure modes. Measure washing, light and dry/wet rubbing; add perspiration, stretch, abrasion or weathering when the product requires them. Set acceptance criteria with the buyer.
4. Run a production-length trial. Confirm nozzle reliability, colour consistency, curing uniformity, throughput and repeatability beyond a selected laboratory swatch.
5. Compare the full economics and resource use. Use cost, water, energy and waste per accepted metre or garment at the required quality.

The likely direction is further integration: selective treatment, improved fixation chemistry, better control of cure and more repeatable digital production. Pigment ink will gain applications where that combination delivers flexibility and reduced wet processing with the required durability. Dye processes will remain valuable where their fibre coloration and finished performance offer the stronger result.

The role of a self-dispersed pigment colorant

AIC supplies self-dispersed water-based inkjet pigment colorants as formulation ingredients. Dispersion control supports colour delivery, storage and jetting; binder chemistry and textile processing provide other parts of the finished performance. A fine particle-size report cannot establish wash or light fastness on its own.

For colourant selection, review the model-specific catalogue and TDS and particle-size report library, then evaluate the selected grade in the intended ink and fabric process. For wider context, see our textile digital printing ink history and surface-modified versus polymer-encapsulated dispersion comparison.

References and scope

Sources checked on 28 October 2026. Manufacturer data remain specific to the named equipment, ink and test fabric. The examples are not measurements or certifications of AIC finished textile inks. Test-method summaries do not replace the complete standards.

1. Epson Como: Monna Lisa ML-13000 at Drupa 2024, integrated and selectively applied textile treatment chemistry.
2. Epson Group Sustainability Report 2024, Environment, printed page 107, water-use comparison and measurement conditions.
3. DITF: Nachhaltige Farbgebung für Denimprodukte, DENIMPRINT research project.
4. ISO 105-C06:2010, colour fastness to domestic and commercial laundering.
5. Dekanić et al.: Digitally printed cotton fabric – the influence of washing conditions, The Journal Leather & Footwear, 74(1), 3–6 (2025).
6. Şahin and Tufan: Effects of Binder Solution on Color Fastness of Digital Printed Cotton Fabric, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 460, 012038 (2018).
7. ISO 105-B02:2014, colour fastness to artificial light using a xenon-arc fading lamp.
8. ISO 105-B04:2024, colour fastness to artificial weathering.
9. ISO 105-X12:2016, colour fastness to rubbing.
10. EFI Reggiani TERRA Ink Brochure UK, ©2019, page 4, 1200 dpi CMYK table and fixation footnote.
11. İkiz et al.: Evaluation of Washfastness and Crockfastness Values: Pigment Printed Fabrics, AATCC Journal of Research (2014); pigment screen-printing study.
12. Kornit: Industrial polyester printing and NeoPoly technology, 2 April 2019.