The antimicrobial textile market is about to undergo a fundamental rule change. The revision of 'Textiles - Evaluation of Antibacterial Activity - Part 2: Absorption Method', which was initiated in June 2025, passed its standard review meeting in Zhejiang recently, signaling that the two-decade-old evaluation system is now entering a systematic update channel. For buyers and brands, this is not just a technical document iteration but a reshaping of compliance thresholds and market trust.
Background
The current GB/T 20944 series consists of three parts: Part 1 (agar diffusion method, 2007), Part 2 (absorption method, 2007), and Part 3 (shaking method, 2008). Over the past two decades, antibacterial technology has expanded from underwear and socks to sportswear and medical textiles. New materials and processes have emerged, but testing methods have remained at the level of the early 2000s, failing to cover the current product landscape.
The revision is being carried out in a phased manner. The revision of Part 3 was assigned in June 2024 (plan number 20241952-T-608), has been completed, and is now in the approval stage. It will fully replace the 2008 version upon release. The revision of Part 2 was assigned in June 2025 (plan number 20251603-T-608). Passing the review meeting marks significant progress; it will eventually replace the 2007 version. The simultaneous advancement of both standards reflects a systematic approach.
Notably, the drafting units include testing institutions, research institutes, brand companies, and new material enterprises. This cross-sector participation indicates that the revision is not done behind closed doors but incorporates the actual testing pain points and application needs of the industry chain, reducing resistance to implementation.
Industry Impact
For manufacturers, the most direct impact is the update of testing methods and acceptance criteria. The absorption method simulates real-use scenarios where textiles contact liquids like sweat. Adjustments in bacterial strains, inoculation methods, and incubation conditions will directly affect whether products pass. Companies that stick to old processes may face non-compliance, so they need to adapt formulations and finishing processes in advance.
From a market perspective, the old standards left some gray areas for antibacterial claims. Some companies exploited methodological limitations to exaggerate antibacterial rates, making it hard for consumers to distinguish genuine products. The new standards, by improving scientific rigor and reproducibility, will reduce such manipulation. For compliant companies, this is a positive development—standard upgrades help eliminate low-price, low-quality competition and provide clearer market endorsement for truly functional products.
For buyers and foreign trade companies, the revision also brings compliance cost considerations. Exporting to markets like the EU and Japan already requires meeting local regulations; the update of domestic standards helps align with international testing systems and reduces duplicate testing. However, in the short term, existing products may face a compliance gap during the transition period. Purchase contracts should update testing clauses to avoid disputes due to version differences.