Main elements of analysis:

1. The scope of supply chain coverage for effective detection (additive tracers) or providing traceability of information  (see Figure 7).

• For forensic tracers: Analysing claims made of where in the fashion and textile supply chain the tracers can provide traceability of information
• For additive tracers: Analysing claims made of where in the fashion and textile supply chain the tracers can be detected effectively and therefore provide traceability of information.

For both tracer categories the variables are on/off-site detection, and the different tiers of the supply chain.

This analysis aims to understand, per tracer technology, the technical feasibility, and/or proven operational feasibility of detecting effectively or providing traceability of information at the associated supply chain tier.

The claims from the tracer companies have been classified as follows:

• No claimed evidence that the tracer can be detected effectively and/or provide traceability of information at the associated supply chain tier
• Technical feasibility: Claimed theoretical evidence that the tracer COULD be detected effectively and/or provide traceability of information AT the associated supply chain tier
• Operational feasibility: Claimed practical evidence (e.g. pilots and/or partnerships) that the tracer CAN be detected effectively and/or provide traceability of information AT the associated supply chain tier

2. Whether the tracers can effectively detect the mixing and blending of fibres (see Figure 8)

Quantifying fibre content: understanding how much a fibre/material has been mixed or blended with another fibre that is not from a verified source.

For this analysis, claims from the tracer companies have been classified as follows:

• No claimed evidence that the tracer has the capability to detect the mixing and blending of fibres.
• Technical feasibility: Claimed theoretical evidence that the tracer has the capability to detect the mixing and blending of fibres.
• Operational feasibility: Claimed practical evidence (e.g. pilots and/or partnerships) That the tracer has the capability to detect the mixing and blending of fibres.

Sub-elements of analysis:

• The detection process
• On-site or off-site detection
• If off-site, does detection go through a third-party independent process?
• If your technology requires the use of a database, what is the coverage of that database?
  • For forensic tracers this is usually referring to the coverage of their provenance databases (see glossary)
  • For additive tracers this is usually referring to the database of unique tracer substance signatures (see glossary) that can be offered
• For forensic tracers, the size of the material sample is needed
  • This refers to the size of material needed to conduct micro-particle analysis on to prove provenance
• Description of the sampling methodology
  • This refers to the amount, frequency, and location of fibre, materials, and/or product samples taken within the supply chain.
• Detection of fibre mixing and blending (see glossary)
• Impact of textile processing steps
• Integration with existing IT solutions
• Proprietary IT systems
• Quality control mechanisms:
  • What is the quality control mechanism?
  • How often are these quality control tests conducted?
  • Do you have any controls in place to avoid fraudulent behaviour?

FIGURE 7: This table shows where in the fashion and textile supply chain tracers can be applied and detected effectively and/or provide traceability of information.

FIGURE 8: this table shows the capabilities of whether the tracers can effectively detect the mixing and blending of fibres.

PART 3 CONCLUSION

Below are the key takeaways in regard to fibre, materials, and/or product use cases. The analysis is grouped into the following categories:

• Forensic tracers
  • Detection capabilities
  • Detection processes
  • Detecting the mixing and blending of fibres
  • Integration with IT solutions
  • Sampling methodology
  • Size of sample needed for effective detection
  • Impact of textile processing steps
• Additive tracer
  • Detection capabilities
  • Detection processes
  • Detecting the mixing and blending of fibres
  • Impact of textile processing steps
  • Integration with IT solutions

FORENSIC TRACERS

Detection capabilities

In reference to Figure 7 based on the claims made, only some forensic tracers can effectively provide traceability of information for all tiers of the supply chain. A key trend is providing traceability of information at Tier 4 (Raw material production). Forensic tracers are a good way to verify the geographic origin of virgin plant and animal fibres with little supply chain burden (no application process needed).

• BUILDING A PROVENANCE DATABASE NEEDED

To provide traceability, forensic tracers need to build provenance databases of the biochemical properties of the fibres, fabrics, and products. Samples need to be taken in order to analyse the trace meddles present in the fibres, fabrics, and products. Historically this has been more associated with providing visibility of first mile geographic origins of plant and animal fibres, building isotopic/elemental/DNA fingerprints from raw material extraction (e.g. Tier 4  cotton farm).

However, there are rising motivations to seek traceability verification for the middle tiers of the supply chain (e.g. Tier 3-1). But for forensic tracers, this can be more difficult. Building a provenance database of fibres and materials at these middle tiers of the supply chain is more complex. Firstly, it is more difficult to access these tiers of the supply chain in order to build a meaningful provenance database of the fibres and materials in question. And secondly, impactful manufacturing processes mean that biochemical properties of the fibres and materials can be constantly changing, creating further problems for confidently building provenance databases.

Detection processes

• OFF-SITE DETECTION

The process of detection for forensic tracers is usually off-site, analysing the DNA/chemical/isotopic makeup of the fibre, material, and/or product sample, rather than detecting an added tracer substance (e.g. ultraviolet (UV)-legible watermarking/luminescent pigments) as the additive tracers do. Therefore the forensic tracers needed to verify, provide transparency, and facilitate the flow of information to the user rely on taking samples from the supply chain and analysing them in off-site, sometimes third-party laboratories.

Detecting mixing and blending of fibres

• UNCERTAIN CAPABILITY

Through the interviewing process with the forensic tracer companies the capability to detect and quantify the extent of mixing and blending (fibre quantification) was uncertain. However what had a higher degree of certainty was still being able to authenticate the presence of certified natural fibres in a mix/blend in order to provide traceability verification.

Integration with IT solutions

• FORENSIC TRACERS HAVE VARIED CAPABILITIES FOR IT INTEGRATION

IT and digital integration capabilities were mixed in the forensic tracer category. Some rely on document send outs (e.g. PDF, CVS. spreadsheet data) and others have more advanced capabilities to integrate with existing ERP systems via API integration. However, as the detection process for forensic tracers are off-site, rather than within supply chain operations in real-time for additive tracers, API capability seems less relevant (but still of importance depending on the users requests for data integration). This is partly due to off-site detection being outside the realm of direct supply chain operations and therefore associated ERP systems. More importantly, key traceability and supply chain mapping digital platforms (e.g. TrusTrace, Textile Genesis) are providing agnostic integrative capacity with tracer technologies to incorporate forensic audit results alongside chain of custody documentation. Looking forward, this stream of collaboration is an integral one to follow in order to provide supplementary verification for fibre integrity, and the consolidation of associated digital documentation and traceability data.

Sampling methodology

• SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND PROTOCOLS DEPENDENT ON USER REQUIREMENTS

The sampling methodology (in this instance the protocol implemented for sampling fibre, material, and/or product from the supply chain) is mostly tailored to the users requirements and transparency/traceability objectives.

Depending on tracer detection capabilities, samples can be taken from the supply chain, raw material source, and/or at various points of the supply chain (e.g. to account for blending and/or transformation amongst other supply chain provenance motivations) or the finished product from the market.

It is also key to note that there are two distinct steps in sampling by forensic tracers:

• First is building a provenance database (elemental profiling & Isotopic analysis) of the desired fibre, material, and/or product to be verified.
• Second is verifying new samples taken from the supply chain by cross-referencing them with the provenance databases built to provide verification of origin. The frequency of samples taken is totally dependent on the sampling protocol agreed between the user and tracer company.

Size of sample needed for effective detection

• ONLY A SMALL AMOUNT OF MATERIAL NEEDED FOR EFFECTIVE MICRO-PARTICLE ANALYSIS

Only a few grams or a small piece of fibre, material, and/or product needed for forensic (isotope/DNA/elemental profiling). Sample size requirements change based on the material and where in the chain the samples are taken.

There are two main dependencies for the size of sample needed for detection:

• Fibre or material analysed
• Where in the supply chain samples are taken

Impact of textile processing steps

• TEXTILE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES CAN IMPACT THE DETECTION CAPABILITIES OF FORENSIC TRACERS

(The extent to which is unclear, more scientific research and R&D needed)

For DNA analysis, heating and bleaching disrupts the chemical composition, and therefore the forensic legibility of DNA structures. For isotopic and elemental profiling tracers, the dyeing process doesn’t impact the isotopic and chemical makeup of trace meddles, and therefore before impact detection capabilities.

ADDITIVE TRACERS

Detection capabilities

In reference to Figure 7 based on the claims made, it is clear all additive tracers have claimed both theoretical and operational feasibility to be detected effectively up until Tier 0. This is subject to claims of viable application points in the supply chain, which, relative to each tracer technology, is dependent on capabilities and business focus.

• DETECTION CAPABILITIES IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN DETERMINED BY APPLICATION CAPABILITIES

For the optical fingerprint tracers (Arylla, Digimarc) applied at Tier 2 and beyond (post fabric manufacturing stage), detection feasibility is defined alongside application feasibility. This is due to the fact that the physical composition of the nano invisible-ink markings and on fabric digital watermarking cannot sustain through Tier 4, 3, 2 and manufacturing processes.

It should be noted that detection capabilities of the tracer technologies are not only defined by their performance are essential to sustain and remain readable after supply chain manufacturing steps. Supplier engagement and management are essential to secure good application environments.

• CAPABILITY TO PROVIDE TRACEABILITY RELIES ON SUPPLIER ENGAGEMENT

For additive tracers, the capability of supply chain tier traceability corresponds directly to where in the supply chain the additive tracer can be applied and detected effectively (see Figure 7). But in order to successfully facilitate the flow of traceability information, operational change management for suppliers is required to implement the application and detection processes on the supply chain floor.

Detection processes

Detection processes of additive tracers are varied and determined by the tracer composition itself. Many detection mechanisms are “lock and key”, meaning the detection devices are only capable of detecting the associated tracer substance of which they are designed to read.

DETECTION PROCESSES CAN BE HANDHELD, INLINE, VIA TEST-KITS/MOLECULAR SCREENING TOOLS, OR VIA SMARTPHONE/TABLET SCANNING:

• Handheld

For ultraviolet (UV) legible watermarking and invisible luminescent pigments (see the “ink/rare earth fluorescents” sub-category for associated tracer companies), handheld portable detectors can manually scan the fibre, material and/or product to detect the tracer substance.

• Inline (mechanical)

Inline verification detectors (automated belt detectors within fibre and material processing machines) can be integrated to the supply chain for real-time automated detection capability at a faster and larger scale.

• Test kits/molecular screening tools

For synthetic/artificial DNA tracers the capabilities of detection can be both on-site (via test kit / molecular screening tools for in-field screening) or off-site (samples sent to a laboratory outside the supply chain operations for micro-particle analysis).

• Smartphone/tablet scanning

For optical fingerprint tracers applied at manufacturing stage (e.g. Arylla, Digimarc), the nano-particle tags can be scanned and identified by smartphones and tablets.

Detecting mixing & blending of fibres

CAPABLE, BUT TO WHAT EXTENT?

Additive Tracers have better capability for detecting the mixing and blending of fibres. However this claimed capability to detect the mixing and blending of fibres can include the following descriptions:

• The additive tracer being detected after the mixing and blending with fibre types not containing the tracer substance.
• The additive tracer applying different tracer substance signatures to different fibre types, that are detected later to verify origin of different fibre types within a mix/blend.
• The additive tracer detection mechanisms (handheld, inline (mechanical), test kits/molecular screening tools) detect different strength readings of the tracer substance present in the fibre, material, and/or product analysed.
• The additive tracer quantifying the percentage of a certain fibre type present within a mix/blend (fibre quantification).

To understand the specific capabilities of detecting the mixing and blending of fibres (and/or fibre quantification), the user should explore further directly with the additive tracer technology of interest. Fibre quantification is a much desired use case for physical verification, especially to meet minimum required content for sustainable product certification (e.g. organic or recycled). But for many additive tracer technologies, the capability is still being refined and developed.

Impact of textile processing steps

• COMPOSITION OF ADDITIVE TRACERS LESS IMPACTED BY MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

Based on the claims made, additive tracers seem less impacted by supply chain manufacturing processes than forensic tracers. Manufacturing processes seem to have more effect on the chemical makeup (DNA/Isotope composition and influence trace meddles acquired by the fibre/fabric/product) than on the ink/rare material UV legible fluorescents of additive tracers. Optical fingerprints (a type of additive tracer usually applied at fabric manufacturing stage or on product labels) are less impacted due to their focused application area later in the supply chain (Tier 2 – 0). However, it should be noted forensic tracers can rebuild their provenance and elemental profiling databases accordingly to cater for the impact on the chemical composition of fibres/fabrics/products by manufacturing processes.

Integration with solutions:

Generally speaking, a majority of additive tracer companies claimed to have proprietary IT systems, consolidating information and providing data analytics of uploaded data through their tracer detection mechanisms. API integration from proprietary IT solutions to supply chain systems (ERP, SAP etc) was a common claim, as was blockchain compatibility. Some claims also associate API integration compatibility with brand management software (e.g. PLM), facilitating the flow of supply chain traceability data to brands’ internal product management databases. Again, agnostic capabilities and roadmaps for collaboration with supply chain traceability digital platforms (e.g. Trustrace, Textile Genesis) were a key topic of discussion (and an exciting one to pursue for physical authentication to existing site-level and transaction-level chain of custody).

• OPTICAL FINGERPRINTS VARIED IT INTEGRATION FOCUS

Arylla (nano invisible-ink marking on product labels) has a more brand/consumer facing focus holding API integration capacity also for seamless integration with third party software, including WeChat, Facebook messenger, Whatsapp etc. fitting to their consumer facing focus for product traceability.

Digimarc (digital watermarks/serialisation on fabric rolls) has proven IT integration on fabric serialisation designs with Photoshop/Illustrator compatibility. In addition, claims made are that optical fingerprint detection can relay and synchronise with NFC, QR, RFID traceability programs, depending on the users motivations and data requirements.

• ESTABLISHED ADDITIVE TRACERS HAVE ADVANCED CLOUD BASED/BLOCKCHAIN PROPRIETARY IT PLATFORMS

Proprietary IT systems of well established tracer technologies are based on blockchain networks or a cloudbase platforms, allowing for realtime uploading of traceability information by detection mechanisms (e.g. Manuel/handheld scanning devices, inline scanning devices, test kits, smartphone/tablet scanning)

• TAILORED AND CUSTOMISED INTEGRATION CAPABILITIES

key trend: the integration of proprietary IT solutions of additive tracers with supply chain manufacturing systems (ERP) and brand product management databases (PLM) can be tailored and customised. This enables the flow of data associated with the additive tracer’s detection to speak to other systems for the purposes of bridging physical traceability with digital traceability, and aligning associated physical-level verification of fibres/material (detecting the additive tracer) with site-level and transaction-level verification (digitised site and transaction certificates). For this to work with existing chain of custody models, tracer companies will need to align data requirements with chain of custody protocols of certification schemes and standards.

• DETECTION FREQUENCY, SAMPLING METHODOLOGY, AND AMOUNT OF FIBRE/FABRIC/PRODUCT NEEDED TO DETECT THE TRACER EFFECTIVELY

Detection frequency (scanning frequency for detection mechanisms) and sampling methodology (determining frequency, type of samples taken, and amount of fibre, material, and/or product sample needed for the tracer to be detected effectively, relevant for toolkits/molecular screening tools) are enquiry topics that are highly variable between the additive tracer technologies and by user motivations.