Systematic Insights into a Textile Industry: Reviewing Life Cycle Assessment and Eco-Design

Ana Fonseca

Edgar Ramalho

Ana Gouveia

Rita Henriques

Filipa Figueiredo

João Nunes

Associação CECOLAB—Collaborative Laboratory Towards Circular Economy, Rua Nossa Senhora da Conceição, nº. 2. Lagares da Beira, 3405-155 Oliveira do Hospital, Portugal

Associação BLC3—Campus de Tecnologia e Inovação, Centre Bio R&D Unit, Rua Nossa Senhora da Conceição, nº. 2, 3405-155 Oliveira do Hospital, Portugal

Submission received: 29 September 2023 / Revised: 18 October 2023 / Accepted: 24 October 2023 / Published: 25 October 2023

Abstract

The worldwide textile sector is one of the most polluting and consuming natural resource value chains. In recent years, trends have demonstrated a linear model driven by fast fashion, increasing the sustainability problems of this sector. The European market and industry are changing the paradigm and promoting some actions towards a sustainable value chain. This paper applies a systematic approach to reviewing scientific research, where Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is implemented as a tool to understand the impacts considering a holistic life cycle framework, from raw materials to the end-of-life of textile products. The methodology and criteria applied resulted in 73 articles used for qualitative analysis, of which 39 met the criteria for quantitative analysis. The quantitative results reported in the studies were organized and presented by phase of the garment production life cycle (production of fiber, yarn, fabric, manufacturing, and recovery/end of life). From a cradle-to-gate perspective, wool yarn production, by worsted processing, was the material with the highest values (95.70 kg CO₂ eq/kg) for climate change/global warming potential, closely followed by silk fabric (80.90 kg CO₂ eq/kg). Extending to a cradle-to-grave boundary, polyester had the highest values for the previously mentioned category, reaching a potential release of 40.28 kg CO₂ eq per kilogram of polyester textile. When data was available, the user phase predominantly contributed to climate change/global warming potential. Additionally, there were significant differences in maximum and minimum values for some of the materials, which were related to methodological considerations, database inventory, and frequency of use and care considered by the different authors. The study also addresses the considerations and limitations of diverse LCA impact assessment tools.

1. Introduction

The textile value chain plays a pivotal role in modern society by providing fabrics and products used in day-to-day life, ranging from clothing to household items and various other textile goods. Clothing allowed humans to survive in different environments and made living more comfortable, and, notably, 60% of global fiber production is destined for this end [1]. Globally, textile production has nearly doubled since the turn of the century, and, according to the European Environment Agency (EEA), apparel consumption is projected to rise by 63% by 2030 [2].

The current linear model, primarily driven by ultrafast fashion, is characterized by low rates of reuse, repair, and fiber-to-fiber recycling of textiles, enticing consumers to purchase low-quality, short-lived garments, magnifying the environmental repercussions of the sector [3]. Furthermore, it is estimated that the apparel and footwear industries generate 8–10% of global carbon emissions, which amounts to an equivalent of roughly 1.2 billion tons of CO₂ equivalent [2,4]. The increasing demand for textiles also leads to the inefficient use of non-renewable resources, including the production of synthetic fibers from fossil fuels, resulting in the shedding of microplastics throughout all stages of their lifecycle [5]. Additionally, textile dyeing and finishing processes contribute to wastewater pollution, which is challenging to treat, harmful to aquatic ecosystems, and a threat to human health [6]. Moreover, major textile-producing countries such as China, India, and Bangladesh continue to rely heavily on coal for their operations [7]. Energy-intensive garment care practices, including washing, drying, pressing, and dry-cleaning, further compound these environmental challenges [8]. Additionally, the improper disposal of textile waste in landfills or incineration sites leads to the release of hazardous chemicals and greenhouse gases (GHG) into the environment. In numbers, it is estimated that Europeans use nearly 26 kg of textiles and discard about 11 kg every year. Although used clothing can be exported outside the European Union (EU), the vast majority (87%) is incinerated or landfilled, and, due to insufficient technology, less than 1% of clothing is recycled globally [2].

In order to address the problems associated with the textile industry, the EU published in 2022 the “EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles” to implement commitments made under the European Green Deal, the new Circular Economy Action Plan, and the Industrial Strategy [9]. The strategy aims to ensure that by 2030, the textile products placed on the EU market are long-lived and repairable, recyclable, incorporate recycled fibers as much as possible, free from hazardous substances, and sustainable from a social and environmental perspective. The actions are directed at the entire life cycle of textile products, where eco-design strategies are applied [9]. Some specific examples include tight controls on greenwashing, measures to tackle the release of microplastics during manufacturing processes and use, and the creation of a “Transition Pathway for Textile Ecosystems” [9].

Addressing the sustainability issues inherent in this complex industry requires a comprehensive understanding of the environmental impacts associated with textile production, use, and disposal. In this regard, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and eco-design emerge as crucial tools and approaches [10,11]. LCA enables a holistic assessment of the entire life cycle of various products, such as textiles, encompassing the extraction of raw materials, manufacture, distribution, use, and end-of-life disposal. By quantifying environmental burdens at each stage, LCA can be a useful tool to empower decision-makers to identify critical areas for improvement and apply better alternatives through eco-design. This quantitative technique is based on science, takes a life cycle perspective, and covers extensive environmental issues [12].

1.1. Eco-Design Overview

Eco-design, also known as ecological design or sustainable design, incorporates environmental considerations into product design and development to reduce negative environmental impacts throughout the product’s life cycle [13,14]. By incorporating eco-design principles into product development methods, it is possible to create more sustainable solutions that satisfy market needs by reducing environmental impacts and increasing ecological efficiency [15]. Eco-design can be applied at various levels, such as improving and developing existing products and designing new products as system-oriented and product-oriented eco-designs [16]. The eco-design process typically consists of six steps outlined in ISO 14006:2020 [17], as seen in Figure 1. Among these steps, the environmental assessment of products (step two) is particularly significant. In this phase, the aim is to identify the stage or process of the product life cycle with the highest environmental impact [13,18].

Despite the fact that the eco-design standard does not explicitly reference LCA, it remains the most objective and frequently utilized tool for assessing the environmental profile of products [15,19,20].

1.2. LCA Overview

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a quantitative tool that analyzes the environmental impacts of products, processes, and services. It can be applied throughout their entire life cycle, from cradle-to-gate to cradle-to-grave, and has several defining characteristics. Standardized by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards through ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006 [21,22], the LCA process is divided into four steps: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory, life cycle impact assessment, and life cycle interpretation (Figure 2). By measuring various environmental impact indicators such as carbon footprint, water footprint, eutrophication, acidification, and human toxicity, LCA provides a comprehensive assessment of the hotspots of a product’s life or a service [23,24,25]. Transparency is crucial in all steps to ensure the credibility of the study and its report. The content of an LCA study depends on its intended application, such as strategic planning, marketing, or policymaking [26]. Different review studies explore distinct aspects, such as Munasinghe et al. (2021), which performed a systematic review of the life cycle inventory of clothing, focusing mainly on identifying gaps in the availability of Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data, and Sahoo et al. (2022), which focused on a specific material [25,27]. The reviews retrieved from the search for the present work will be further explored in Section 3. The current study differs from others in that it presents a literature review of the life cycle of textile production throughout the entire production chain, from the production of raw materials to their use and end of life, quantitatively comparing the results obtained for each type of textile raw material.

Incorporating a span from 2008 to 2023, this article undertakes the task of performing a systematic review of LCA literature from the textile industry by:

The study is composed of four sections, including this introduction. Section 2 outlines the methods adopted by the study, including the criteria for this systematic literature review. Section 3 unveils the primary findings, while Section 4 engages in discussing and highlighting prospects from the study, including notes for future exploration as well as constraints.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bibliographic Research

This systematic review was conducted to comprehensively examine published LCA studies related to the textile industry. The database Scopus was utilized for the bibliographic research, where fourteen sets of keywords were employed for the search: “LCA and Textile”; “LCA, Raw Materials and Textile”; “LCA and Garment”; “LCA and Yarn”; “LCA and Clothes”; “LCA and T-shirt”; “LCA and Fashion”; “Life Cycle Assessment and Textile; “Life Cycle Assessment, Raw Materials and Textile”; “Life Cycle Assessment and Garment”; “Life Cycle Assessment and Yarn”; “Life Cycle Assessment and Clothes”; “Life Cycle Assessment and T-shirt”; “Life Cycle Assessment and Fashion”.

The time period for the research was not restricted to encompassing a comprehensive range of studies. The initial search resulted in a total of 680 articles, after excluding duplicates and empty entries. Titles and abstracts were screened, with a total of 586 entries excluded (e.g., studies about incorporating textile waste in concrete production [28]; chemicals used in pre-treatments and other steps of textile manufacturing [29]; LCA of waste streams from textile production [30]). After the full-text analysis of the papers, 14 reviews were excluded for not providing qualitative and quantitative data, resulting in a total of 73 studies that met the criteria for inclusion in the qualitative data analysis (which consists of the number of publications per year, system boundaries, LCA software, and impact assessment method). In the quantitative analysis, 34 studies were excluded for not providing retrievable data, remaining only 39, as seen in Figure 3.

Additionally, prior to screening the results, a map of the co-occurrence of keywords was created using VOSviewer software 1.6.19.

2.2. Quantitative Analysis

The studies eligible for quantitative analysis were divided by type of material (studies could include one or more types of materials), according to the origin of material (conventional, organic, recovered, or other), and system boundary. Impact values were collected for each identified category, and in order to make the data as comparable as possible, the values related to the defined functional unit were converted to a standardized unit of 1 kg of functional unit (taking into account the reference flow), whenever possible, to enable comparison of impacts according to the previously described division. When available, data for each considered life cycle phase was also collected in order to assess the impact along the value chain. For the cradle-to-gate analysis, data was divided by fiber, yarn, fabric, and final product, according to the functional unit defined by the authors. Due to the heterogeneity of the life cycle phases considered in the reviewed studies, a simplified approach was adopted for the cradle-to-grave system boundary. The life cycle phases were categorized and grouped to facilitate comparison. For example, if data were available for spinning, wet processing, and other phases, they were included within the broader “manufacturing phase” (Figure 4).

Additionally, results will only be presented for the impact category Climate Change/Global Warming Potential (kg CO₂ eq); for the remaining categories, the results can be consulted in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S2–S8).

3. Results

As of 25 September 2023, a total of 73 studies meeting the defined criteria for the qualitative assessment were collected and are presented in Table 1. The time period of papers is 2008–2023, and the years with the most publications correspond to 2018, 2020, and 2021 (n = 10) (Figure 5). Regarding the identified reviews retrieved from the search, six review sustainable production of specific materials [27,31,32,33,34,35], five review overall sustainability of the textile industry and do not include quantitative analysis [14,36,37,38,39], one reviews end-of-life environmental impacts of textiles [40], and one reviews the implementation of circular practices within the industry [41]. Additionally, one of the results was not retrievable.

In addition, a keyword review of the initial search results was conducted with VOSviewer software, allowing for the examination of keyword co-occurrence relationships (Figure 6). The map was created based on bibliographic data, with a minimum of occurrences defined as two, resulting in 49 eligible words and 8 different clusters. The term “life cycle assessment” is included in Cluster 2 and has 30 occurrences (other nominations such as “LCA” also appear in different clusters). Inside the same cluster, the terms “environmental impacts”, “clothing”, and “consumer behavior” have an occurrence of 10, 4, and 2, respectively. Sohn et al., a study included in the quantitative analysis, mainly focused on consumer behavior related to garment consumption patterns, evidencing the importance of also including a social aspect when performing LCA [42].

While geographical borders could be relevant for delimiting the scope of articles, they were not considered in the analysis.

From this point on, the results will be presented depending on which stage of the LCA they could be associated with.

3.1. Goal and Scope Definition

The objective and scope varied depending, essentially, on the focus of the analysis carried out as well as the defined functional unit. With this information, 8 studies delimited gate-to-gate boundaries, 30 cradle-to-grave, and the remaining 35 carried a cradle-to-gate approach, as seen in Figure 7 (corresponding papers can be consulted in Table 1). It is important to mention that in the definition of cradle-to-gate, some studies may include distinct phases in the system boundary. For example, Shen et al. and Astudillo only include raw material acquisition and fiber production [45,83]. Others consider boundaries to be yarn production or fabric production, such as Liu et al. and La Rosa et al. [64,101], while others may include garment/final production, as is the case of Kazan et al. and Muthukumara et al. [63,77], or even transport and retail, namely Periyasamy et al., Fidan et al., and Martin et al. [59,70,79]. Moreover, one particular study by Wang et al. defined a cradle-to-gate boundary but also included the usage phase within the analyzed boundaries due to its relevant contribution to overall greenhouse gas emissions [92].

Regarding the choice of functional unit (FU), more than half of the studies chose a final product as a functional unit, ranging from t-shirts, which could either be a single piece with 0.160 g or 1000 pieces [62,63], to 1000 socks [43]. Fibers and fabrics (usually considering 1 kg) were the second most common FU (Figure 8).

3.2. Life Cycle Inventory

Most studies used the “SimaPro” software to carry out the LCA, accounting for almost half of the reviewed papers. For the same purpose, the “Gabi” and “OpenLCA” software were used in 14 and 5 articles, respectively. A total of 17 papers did not mention or use software for the LCA analysis, in which case the LCA was most likely carried out by hand, for example, by resorting to an Excel spreadsheet [113] (Figure 9). The data used for creating the life cycle inventory ranged from sources such as literature, public databases, databases with LCA software, and industry.

Regarding the choice of raw material, Figure 10 only includes information for the 39 quantifiable studies. Some studies focused on the comparison of different feedstocks and therefore evaluated more than one type of raw material. Cotton was the most commonly chosen raw material, with 31 mentions, followed by PET and wool, with 12 and 11 mentions, respectively.

3.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment

The methodology for the impact assessment methods was collected for all 73 studies, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ReCiPe, and CML baseline being the most commonly used methods, with 24, 22, and 16 mentions, respectively. These types of environmental impact assessment methods were not used or mentioned in nine studies (Figure 11). The frequency of impact categories was only analyzed for the quantifiable studies, with the most common being Climate Change/Global Warming Potential (with a unit defined as kg CO₂ eq), appearing in approximately 95% of studies. For the remaining categories, since their use was not consistent with the globality of articles, as well as having different defining units, the results will not be presented in the next subsection but can be consulted in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S2–S8).

3.4. Interpretation

In this section, the results of the impact assessment will only be presented for the category Climate Change/Global Warming Potential (CC/GWP), as previously mentioned. Results only represent the studies chosen for quantification and are divided as described in the methodology section, and results represent the production of 1 kg of material.

3.4.1. Impact Assessment According to System Boundaries

In studies using a cradle-to-gate approach for fiber production, silk and wool scored the highest values, with an average of 18.66 and 13.68 kg CO₂ eq, respectively. Flax and jute presented the lowest values for fiber production (Figure 12). Considering yarn production, wool presented the highest potential impact, with an average of 95.70 kg CO₂ eq, followed by hemp, flax, and cotton with 14.60, 13.60, and 8.08 kg CO₂ eq, respectively. When considering fabric production, silk presented by far the highest results, at 80.9 kg CO₂ eq, followed by polyester at 14.9 kg CO₂ eq.

Wool yarn production presented substantially higher values than fabric production, and this could be related to the size of fibers considered by the authors. Although the size of the fibers used is not mentioned in Parisi et al. [78] (for fabric production), Bianco et al. [109] state that shorter fibers generally present lower potential impacts than longer fibers for yarn production. Cotton had lower average values for fabric production than yarn. This could be related to studies considering different approaches to system boundaries, where they may include or not transportation and packaging, consider different manufacturing techniques, and use data with distinct origins to build the inventory for the assessment.

For the final product production, data was only available for cotton and polyester, which had values of 29.53 and 19.62 kg CO₂ eq, respectively (Figure 12). Considering the differences between maximum and minimum values, the most prevalent variations are for the cotton final product, where the maximum is 58.82 kg CO₂ eq, data retrieved from Periyasamy et al. [79]), for the production of 1 kg of stonewash jeans, and the minimum is 11.51 kg CO₂ eq, data retrieved from Muthukumarana et al. [77]), for the production of a short-sleeve blouse (Figure 12). Both of these studies take into account raw material acquisition, fabric manufacturing, cutting, sewing, finishing, and transportation. Since the equipment used, raw materials, and manufacturing method of the clothes might differ, the generalizability and applicability of the results for another product with considerable variances may be limited. Furthermore, Muthukumarana et al. [77] stated that assumptions were used in the life cycle evaluation when data was unavailable due to the geographical limit of the study being Sri Lanka and a lack of country-specific data.

When adopting a cradle-to-grave approach, polyester showed the highest potential impact with an average of 40.28 kg CO₂ eq (data was limited for most materials, except for polyester, cotton, and wool, considering the production of 1 kg of product). The maximum value (114.23 kg CO₂ eq) for polyester corresponds to Moazzem et al. [73]), which consider the production of 1 kg of apparel and use for a one-year period, being reused at the end of life. The minimum value is 0.16 kg CO₂ eq, from Horn et al. [62], which only considers a single use of a polyester T-shirt. Both cotton and wool are natural fibers, and their CC/GWP average values were similar, at 31 and 30.94 kg CO₂ eq (Figure 13). In the case of wool, there was a significant difference between the maximum and minimum values of 91.72 and 0.53 kg CO₂ eq, respectively. The first value corresponds to Bech et al. [50], which considers the use of a wool t-shirt for a six-month period with a closed loop recycling end-of-life and considers 36 washes, while the second, from Wiedemann et al. [97]), considers 14 washes of a virgin wool sweater with reuse at the end of life.

3.4.2. Impact Assessment According to Life Cycle Phases

In the individual analysis of life cycle phases, only studies that provided comprehensive data on all life cycle phases were considered. For instance, if a study with polyester as a raw material only included fiber production, the values were included in this analysis, and so on.

Although life cycle data was not available for all types of feedstocks, for those where it was, the assessment showed that the use phase of the final product had the most significant impact on CC/GWP. There is a small difference when comparing the global warming contribution of the use phase between conventional polyester and polyester garments defined as smart textiles (with nanosilver incorporated), being lower for the later one (Figure 14), while the manufacturing phase of these smart textiles had a higher contribution to overall CC/GWP. Meanwhile, when comparing conventional cotton with organic cotton, there is a significant difference in the contribution of the manufacturing phase to the overall impact, being higher for conventional cotton (Figure 14).

The limited availability of data for certain life cycle phases for materials such as recovered cotton and wool, as well as conventional production of wool, hinders a clear interpretation of the results (see Table S9). However, this will be discussed further in the next section.

4. Discussion

The full life cycle of textile products encompasses processes related to raw material extraction, manufacturing, distribution, retail, use, and end-of-life handling. A systematic approach was used to assess trends in studies relating to this topic, as well as the impacts of using different feedstocks and considering specific life cycle phases.

It is important to acknowledge that the more complex the product is, the more complex the evaluation of its life cycle will be [62], and for this study, a simplified method for a complex process was approached. For instance, the manufacturing phase is complex and differs according to the type of material and final end product, and chemicals and add-ons to the material also contribute to the overall impact, but they were not considered in this analysis [29].

The criteria for the methodological approach accounted for as much comparison as possible. Although 73 studies met the overall criteria for qualitative analysis, some did not present data in a retrievable manner and therefore were not included in the quantifiable assessment. More than half of the studies were from the last 5 years. The keyword co-occurrence relationships showed there is a relevant association with LCA, consumer care, and apparel. From a life cycle perspective, consumer education on environmental practices when it comes to the care of apparel, such as air-drying and cool washing, can be as relevant as efficient appliances [114].

The majority of the analyzed studies had a cradle-to-gate approach, neglecting the user phase, which is as important as the remaining life cycle phases.

Regarding the materials, cotton, polyester, and wool were the choices for a large portion of the studies and are representative of the feedstock used in the industry. According to the Preferred Fiber and Materials Market Report 2022 from Textile Exchange, synthetic fibers held 64% of the global fiber production in 2021, with polyester being the most prominent form of synthetic fiber at 54%. Cotton was the most prevalent natural fiber, accounting for 22% of plant fibers from a total share of 28%, and finally, wool, the primary animal fiber produced, accounts for 1% of the total share [115].

A lack of consistency was identified in the choice of impact categories; insufficient data posed challenges for the review process. Although the comparison was made whenever possible and those results can be consulted on the supplementary materials (Tables S2–S8), because CC/GWP was represented in the great majority of the studies, as previously explained, those were the only results presented in the review. Changes in global temperature caused by greenhouse gases affect biodiversity, deteriorate environmental health, and cause climatic phenomena such as extreme weather events [116].

When considering studies with a cradle-to-gate boundary, for the manufacture of 1 kg of material, silk fiber production had the highest value for global warming potential (18.66 kg CO₂ eq) in comparison to the remaining materials (wool, cotton, flax, and jute). Silk production involves harvesting mulberry trees, the food source for silk worms, that, after entering the cocoon phase, are dried and then boiled to extract the fiber [45]. Although untreated silk is a biodegradable animal fiber, the raw material extraction phase is a highly intensive process that includes the production of Kraft paper used for covering silkworms and high amounts of electricity [47,61]. Astudillo et al. [45] identified causes for the high values of global warming potential, associating them with fertilizer use and farmyard manure practices, which may also explain the values that silk fabric production presented (80.9 kg CO₂ eq). Additionally, adopting circular economy practices by valorizing and recovering the byproducts and wastes from the different life cycle phases of silk production, mainly at the farm level, can be of great value to reducing overall environmental impacts [117]. For yarn production, wool presented the highest values, but it is important to note that only one study had retrievable values [109], while the results for cotton were the average of three studies [51,67,101]. Wool yarn production values were higher than those obtained for wool fabric production, and this could be related to the size of the fibers being produced from the raw materials. For instance, longer and more expansive fibers are obtained by worsted processing (the case of Bianco et al. [109]), which generally has a higher impact than shorter and cheaper fibers obtained by woolen processing (the case of Parisi et al. [78]) [109]. Additionally, other variables should be considered that may result in higher impacts, such as the type of wool, that can also influence the lifetime or recyclability of a garment [109].

For the final product, data was only available for cotton and polyester, with 29.53 and 19.62 kg CO₂ eq, respectively. Only one study was considered for polyester [91], while for cotton, the value corresponds to the average of four studies [63,77,79,92]. For this chain of production, maximum and minimum values presented the highest disparity, which correspond to cotton apparel production, where the maximum is 58.82 kg CO2 eq, data retrieved from Periyasamy et al. [79]), for the production of 1 kg of stonewash jeans, and the minimum is 11.51 kg CO₂ eq, data retrieved from Muthukumarana et al. [77], for the production of a short-sleeve blouse.

From the cradle-to-grave perspective, it was only possible to compare results for the conventional production of cotton, polyester, and wool. Polyester’s global warming potential values surpassed those of the remaining fibers, with a total of 40.28 kg CO₂ eq per kg of product. The fibers used for the synthetic fossil-based polymers of polyester are derived from coal, air, water, and petroleum [62]. Alternatives for obtaining polyester, such as adopting biological-based feedstocks that are renewable in nature, were analyzed in Wiedemann et al., where it was reported that for GHG emissions, bio-based polyester obtained higher values than fossil-derived polyester [11]. Additionally, there is a growing problem associated with synthetic fibers, where microfibers released during the production and washing of the fabrics are considered primary sources of microplastics in the oceans, affecting different ecosystems and impacting the health of living organisms [89,118,119].

In Section 3.4.1, for the cradle-to-grave system boundary, the differences in maximum and minimum values for both polyester and wool are related to the frequency of use and care considered by the authors [50,62,64,72,79,97].

Although it was not the focus of the review due to a lack of data, adopting circular ideas, such as using recycled fibers as an alternative to virgin fibers, may reduce environmental impact compared to incineration and landfills [120]. However, under certain assumptions, there is a risk that textile recycling causes certain categories of environmental impacts, such as climate change impacts, to increase if the recycling processes are powered by fossil energy [120].

In the analysis of the contribution of each life cycle phase to the overall impact of CC/GWP, results need to be carefully considered due to a lack of data consistency and authors considering different time periods or frequency of care for the use phase. Some authors may consider one use of the garment [11], while others may consider one or more years of use and care of the garment [62,72,98]. Additionally, the considered care methods, such as temperature of washing, use of a tumble dryer, and ironing, may also impact the results [82].

When considered, the use phase is the main contributor to GHG emissions. The use phase may include washing, drying, and ironing and is associated with spending high amounts of resources such as energy, water, detergents, or other care products [11,42]. Consumer behavior is a determinant of the overall impacts of this life cycle phase. However, from a circular economy perspective, both the design and use phases are of central importance, as these can provide significant points for optimization [62], where eco-design tools can be introduced to optimize the energetic efficiency of technologies and appliances and develop products that have a reduced need for maintenance [121,122].

In this light, smart textiles have been explored and designed to optimize the performance of textiles (either overall or for a specific function) [43,86]. For example, the incorporation of silver nanoparticles has been widely used to produce textiles with antimicrobial properties and, thus, decrease the frequency of care. In spite of the results showing a reduction in the contribution of the use phase to overall climate change, when comparing conventional polyester with smart-textile polyester (from 69% to 67.5%), the contribution increased for smart-textiles during the manufacturing phase (from 13% to 31%). However, the impacts that nanosilver has on the environment and organisms’ health are still unknown [43]. It is important to note that there was no data available for the phases of raw material acquisition as well as retail and transport in the studies that assessed the impacts of smart textiles, although it could be assumed that for retail and transport the impact would be similar to conventional polyester products.

Organic cotton’s raw material acquisition and manufacturing phases had lower contributions to the overall climate change potential (3.56% and 18.95, respectively) when compared to conventional cotton (16.10% and 46.35%, respectively). In the case of raw material acquisition, the lower values are mainly due to the restricted use of fertilizers and pesticides in the production of organic cotton [82]. Regarding the manufacturing phase, the values may vary due to different studies considering different inputs. The use phase presented higher values for organic cotton; however, different studies can assume different care practices and therefore intensify the results for this life cycle phase (e.g., frequency of washing, temperature, detergent quantities, etc.) [82].

In the case of conventional versus recycled wool, although data was not available for all life cycle phases, the contribution that the raw material acquisition phase has in conventional wool (73.8%) was allocated to the manufacturing phase of the recycled wool (90.54%), being a hotspot for fossil energy consumption, therefore GHG emissions, and contributing to CC/GWP [93,97].

Depending on the method of disposal, this stage may have significant environmental consequences. End-of-life reuse is considered the best strategy to manage waste as it does not involve further processing, followed by recycling, which processes materials via monomer, oligomer, and polymer fiber, or fabric recycling methods. Incineration and gasification are the least preferred from a resource recovery perspective but are used for energy recovery. Finally, landfill is the worst disposal method from an environmental viewpoint [123,124]. The data obtained was insufficient to definitively differentiate between end-of-life methods. As a result, the outcomes may exhibit variability due to this limitation.

Limitations of the Study and Future Work

This study identified some limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results presented in this paper. Firstly, the availability of data for each life cycle phase was lacking for most reviewed papers; therefore, there was a need to simplify very complex and diverse processes (especially when comparing different feedstocks). Furthermore, the impact assessment methods also varied amongst the selected papers, which may result in uncertainties when comparing data. This led to the choice of only reviewing one impact category, CC/GWP (kg CO₂ eq), since it was the only category considered in almost all reviewed papers (95%).

The textile industry is a complex area of study, from raw material acquisition to disposal, and includes diverse feedstocks, products, and processes. LCA is a useful tool to assess environmental hotspots, but it is also important to understand that the impact of a garment or product goes beyond fiber production and includes dyes, pigments, finishes, and auxiliaries. Similarly, future work should also include a deep dive into the LCA of products made from blended materials, as well as waste streams and treatments from this vast industry.

5. Conclusions

The objective of this study was to emphasize the prevailing research in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) within the textile value chain. The emphasis was placed on materials and various phases of the product life cycle. Additionally, the study aimed to draw attention to the constraints and diversity of conducting LCA.

The textile value chain is crucial for modern society, providing textiles and other apparel products. However, overproduction, overconsumption, and a society without attention for the environmental consequences of the incorrect use of textile products contribute negatively to environmental issues, including carbon emissions, waste management, and waste disposal. The industry faces many challenges throughout the value chain, including reducing waste and promoting sustainable practices in production and raw material use. LCA and eco-design are essential tools and approaches for understanding the environmental impacts of products and services and defining strategies to minimize these problems. LCA may provide a holistic assessment of textile products’ life cycle, focusing on raw material extraction, manufacturing, distribution, use, and disposal. This methodology can identify high energy costs and pollution stages in manufacturing and support the development of the best available technologies along the value chain.

The systematic analysis adopted to explore trends and impacts within this realm has highlighted the significance of different feedstocks and specific life cycle phases. Notably, the evaluation complexity escalates with the product’s intricacy, and a simplified approach was used in this study. While acknowledging the multifaceted nature of the manufacturing phase, it is important to recognize that certain factors, such as material additives, were omitted. The study’s methodological framework aimed for maximal comparability, leading to qualitative assessment criteria for a substantial number of studies. However, some studies were excluded due to data limitations.

Keyword co-occurrence patterns emphasized the linkages between LCA, consumer practices, and apparel. In a holistic life cycle perspective, consumer education in sustainable garment care practices emerges as pivotal as adopting energy-efficient appliances.

The exploration of materials revealed cotton, polyester, and wool as focal points, aligning with industry trends. Synthetic fibers, especially polyester, emerged dominantly in the global fiber landscape. The results for wool yarn production were especially interesting because the authors considered the size of the fibers being used, associated with the type of treatment and spinning technique applied to the fiber, showing that in the case of wool, size matters. Comparing silk, polyester, and wool’s cradle-to-grave impacts revealed that polyester had a pronounced global warming potential (40.28 kg CO₂ eq per kilogram of textile), stemming from its fossil-based origins. The use phase emerged as a prominent contributor to emissions associated with consumer behaviors, accounting for more than half of the total global warming potential throughout a garment’s life cycle.

As the study concludes, it acknowledges limitations inherent in data availability and the diversity of impact assessment methodologies, which limited the comparison. Future trends and opportunities include circular clothing systems and longevity-focused clothing design, efficient municipal sorting of textile waste, and repair and refurbishment initiatives, which are crucial for sustainable development. Another important aspect, besides the development of policies and adopting more environmentally friendly production practices, is focusing on consumer behavior and education.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su152115267/s1. Table S1: Global vision of the 73 articles analyzed for the qualitative assessment. Table S2: Average values of 1 kg for the cradle-to-grave production of polyester textiles (conventional, bio-based, and smart-textiles) for the indicated impact categories and respective studies considered for the values. Information not available is identified as NA. Table S3: Average values of 1 kg for the cradle-to-grave production of cotton textiles (conventional and organic), for the indicated impact categories and respective studies considered for the values. Information not available is identified as NA. Table S4: Average values of 1 kg for the cradle-to-grave production of wool textiles (conventional and recovered) for the indicated impact categories and respective studies considered for the values. Information not available is identified as NA. Table S5: Average values of 1 kg for the cradle-to-gate production of fiber (cotton, wool, silk, flax, jute, and hemp) for the indicated impact categories and respective studies considered for the values. Information not available is identified as NA. Table S6: Average values of 1 kg for the cradle-to-gate production of yarn (cotton, flax, and hemp) for the indicated impact categories and respective studies considered for the values. Information not available is identified as NA. Table S7: Average values of 1 kg for the cradle-to-gate production of fabric (polyester, cotton, wool, silk, jute, and kenaf) for the indicated impact categories and respective studies considered for the values. Information not available is identified as NA. Table S8: Average values of 1 kg for the cradle-to-gate production of the final product (polyester, cotton, wool, silk, jute, and kenaf) for the indicated impact categories and respective studies considered for the values. Information not available is identified as NA. Table S9: Average values for climate change/global warming potential from the production of 1 kg for each life cycle phase. Information not available is identified as NA.

Author Contributions

Methodology A.F.; Formal analysis, A.F.; writing original draft preparation, A.F.; writing—review and editing, A.F., E.R., A.G., R.H., F.F. and J.N.; F.F. and J.N., conceptualization, validation, visualization, resources, and funding acquisition, along with the editing and supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by CiiM—Circular Innovation Inter-Municipality (CENTRO-04-3560-FSE-072501) Centro Region Operational Programme (Centro2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 partnership agreement through the European Social Fund (EFS), and WinBio—“Waste, Interior, and Bioeconomy” (POCI-01-0246-FEDER-181335), under the Thematic Operational Programme Competitiveness and Internationalization, COMPETE 2020, through the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER). Filipa Figueiredo thanks her research contract funded by Interface Mission under the PRR—Recovery and Resilience Plan (RE-C05-i02–Interface Mission–nº 01/C05-i02/2022), Collaborative Laboratories Base Fund, through the CECOLAB base fund, funded by the European Union NextGeneration EU. Centre Bio R&D Uni. BLC3 thanks their support funded by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) UIDP/05083/2020 and UIDB/05083/2020.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed Consent Statement

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of Interest

References

1. Costa, C.; Azoia, N.G.; Silva, C.; Marques, E.F. Textile Industry in a Changing World: Challenges of Sustainable Development. Univ. Porto J. Eng. 2020, 6 , 86–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Duhoux, T.; Le Blévennec, K.; Arnold, M.; Mortensen, L.F. Textiles and the Environment the Role of Design in Europe’s Circular Economy ; ECT CE: Brussels, Belgium, 2022. [Google Scholar]
3. Smith, P.; Baille, J.; McHattie, L.S. Sustainable Design Futures: An Open Design Vision for the Circular Economy in Fashion and Textiles. Des. J. 2017, 20 , S1938–S1947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Nikolina, Š. Environmental Impact of the Textile and Clothing Industry. What Consumers Need to Know. Eur. Parliam. Res. Serv. 2019. Available online: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1335345/enviro (accessed on 7 July 2023).
5. Beylot, A.; Ardente, F.; Marques, A.; Mathieux, F.; Pant, R.; Sala, S.; Zampori, L.; European Commission Joint Research Centre. Abiotic and Biotic Resources Impact Categories in LCA: Development of New Approaches: Accounting for Abiotic Resources Dissipation and Biotic Resources ; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020; ISBN 9789276172277. [Google Scholar]
6. Panda, S.K.B.C.; Sen, K.; Mukhopadhyay, S. Sustainable Pretreatments in Textile Wet Processing. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 329 , 129725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Konwar, M. Textile Industry and Its Environmental Impacts: A Review. Indian J. Pure Appl. Biosci. 2020, 8 , 134–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Broega, A.C.; Jordão, C.; Martins, S.B. Textile Sustainability: Reuse of Clean Waste from the Textile and Apparel Industry. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 254 , 192006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. European Commission. EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles. Commun. Comm. Eur. Parliam. Counc. Eur. Econ. Soc. Comm. Comm. Reg. 2022, 1 , 5–24. [Google Scholar]
10. Salo, H.H.; Suikkanen, J.; Nissinen, A. Eco-Innovation Motivations and Ecodesign Tool Implementation in Companies in the Nordic Textile and Information Technology Sectors. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2020, 29 , 2654–2667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Wiedemann, S.G.; Nguyen, Q.V.; Clarke, S.J. Using LCA and Circularity Indicators to Measure the Sustainability of Textiles—Examples of Renewable and Non-Renewable Fibres. Sustainability 2022, 14 , 16683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Cicconi, P. Eco-Design and Eco-Materials: An Interactive and Collaborative Approach. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2020, 23 , e00135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Msahli, S.; Faouzi, S.; Taieb, A.H.; Sakly, F. An Eco-Design Approach for the Functional Textile. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Future Technical Textile Conference (FTT 2014), Istanbul, Turkey, 15–17 October 2014. [Google Scholar]
14. Niinimäki, K. Ecodesign and Textiles. Res. J. Text. Appar. 2006, 10 , 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Cimatti, B.; Campana, G.; Carluccio, L. Eco Design and Sustainable Manufacturing in Fashion: A Case Study in the Luxury Personal Accessories Industry. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 8 , 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Zhang, Y.; Kang, H.; Hou, H.; Shao, S.; Sun, X.; Qin, C.; Zhang, S. Improved Design for Textile Production Process Based on Life Cycle Assessment. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2018, 20 , 1355–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. Standard ISO 14006 ; Environmental Management Systems—Guidelines for Incorporating Ecodesign. 2nd ed. International Standard Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
18. Salo, H.; Suikkanen, J.; Nissinen, A. Use of Ecodesign Tools and Expectations for Product Environmental Footprint: Case Study of Nordic Textile and IT Companies ; Nordic Council of Ministers: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2019; ISBN 978-92-893-6254-2. [Google Scholar]
19. Navajas, A.; Uriarte, L.; Gandía, L.M. Application of Eco-Design and Life Cycle Assessment Standards for Environmental Impact Reduction of an Industrial Product. Sustainability 2017, 9 , 1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. Dekoninck, E.A.; Domingo, L.; O’Hare, J.A.; Pigosso, D.C.A.; Reyes, T.; Troussier, N. Defining the Challenges for Ecodesign Implementation in Companies: Development and Consolidation of a Framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135 , 410–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. ISO 14040 ; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. 2nd ed. International Standard Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
22. ISO 14044 ; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. 1st ed. International Standard Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
23. Muthu, S.S. Textile and Clothing Sustainability: Recycled and Upcycled Textiles and Fashion ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; ISBN 978-981-10-2146-6. [Google Scholar]
24. Harsanto, B.; Primiana, I.; Sarasi, V.; Satyakti, Y. Sustainability Innovation in the Textile Industry: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2023, 15 , 1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Munasinghe, P.; Druckman, A.; Dissanayake, D.G.K. A Systematic Review of the Life Cycle Inventory of Clothing. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 320 , 128852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Roos, S.; Zamani, B.; Sandin, G.; Peters, G.M.; Svanström, M. A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)-Based Approach to Guiding an Industry Sector towards Sustainability: The Case of the Swedish Apparel Sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 133 , 691–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Sahoo, S.K.; Dash, A.K. Sustainable Polyester and Caprolactam Fibres ; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022. [Google Scholar]
28. Laiblová, L.; Pešta, J.J.; Kumar, A.; Hájek, P.; Fiala, C.; Vlach, T.; Kocí, V. Environmental Impact of Textile Reinforced Concrete Facades Compared to Conventional Solutions-Lca Case Study. Materials 2019, 12 , 3194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
29. Dahllöf, L.; Steen, B. A Statistical Approach for Estimation of Process Flow Data from Production of Chemicals of Fossil Origin. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2007, 12 , 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Ahangarnokolaei, M.A.; Attarian, P.; Ayati, B.; Ganjidoust, H.; Rizzo, L. Life Cycle Assessment of Sequential and Simultaneous Combination of Electrocoagulation and Ozonation for Textile Wastewater Treatment. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9 , 106251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Chen, F.; Ji, X.; Chu, J.; Xu, P.; Wang, L. A Review: Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton Textiles. Ind. Textila 2021, 72 , 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. Russell, I.M. Sustainable Wool Production and Processing. In Sustainable Textiles—Life Cycle and Environmental Impact ; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2009; pp. 63–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33. Schrott, W.; Paul, R. Environmental Impacts of Denim Manufacture ; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; ISBN 9780857098498. [Google Scholar]
34. Bhatt, A.; Abbassi, B. Review of Environmental Performance of Sheep Farming Using Life Cycle Assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293 , 126192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Devaraju, A.; Harikumar, R. Life Cycle Assessment of Sisal Fiber ; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; Volume 1–5, ISBN 9780128131961. [Google Scholar]
36. Muthu, S.S. (Ed.) Handbook of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Textiles and Clothing ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; ISBN 9780081001875. [Google Scholar]
37. Jhanji, Y. Life Cycle Analysis of Textiles and Associated Carbon Emissions. In Sustainable Fibres for Fashion and Textile Manufacturing ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 403–431. ISBN 9780128240526. [Google Scholar]
38. Watson, K.J.; Wiedemann, S.G. Review of Methodological Choices in LCA-Based Textile and Apparel Rating Tools: Key Issues and Recommendations Relating to Assessment of Fabrics Made from Natural Fibre Types. Sustainability 2019, 11 , 3846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
39. Footprint, E.; Impacts, S. Looking for Sustainability Scoring in Apparel: A Review on Environmental Footprint, Social Impacts and Transparency. Energies 2021, 14 , 3032. [Google Scholar]
40. Moazzem, S.; Wang, L.; Daver, F.; Crossin, E. Environmental Impact of Discarded Apparel Landfilling and Recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 166 , 105338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
41. Dahlbo, H.; Aalto, K.; Eskelinen, H.; Salmenperä, H. Increasing Textile Circulation—Consequences and Requirements. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2017, 9 , 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
42. Sohn, J.; Nielsen, K.S.; Birkved, M.; Joanes, T.; Gwozdz, W. The Environmental Impacts of Clothing: Evidence from United States and Three European Countries. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27 , 2153–2164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
43. Abu-Qdais, H.A.; Abu-Dalo, M.A.; Hajeer, Y.Y. Impacts of Nanosilver-Based Textile Products Using a Life Cycle Assessment. Sustain. 2021, 13 , 3436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
44. Agnhage, T.; Perwuelz, A.; Behary, N. Towards Sustainable Rubia Tinctorum L. Dyeing of Woven Fabric: How Life Cycle Assessment Can Contribute. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141 , 1221–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45. Astudillo, M.F.; Thalwitz, G.; Vollrath, F. Life Cycle Assessment of Indian Silk. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 81 , 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
46. Avadí, A.; Marcin, M.; Biard, Y.; Renou, A.; Gourlot, J.P.; Basset-Mens, C. Life Cycle Assessment of Organic and Conventional Non-Bt Cotton Products from Mali. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25 , 678–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
47. Barcelos, S.; Oiko, O.; Salvador, R. Basis for Conducting Life Cycle Assessment of Brazilian Silk Yarn Manufacturing. E3S Web Conf. 2022, 349 , 08001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
48. Barnes, E.M.; Daystar, J.S.; Wallace, M.L. Challenges of Conducting a Life Cycle Assessment for Bio-Based Materials Using a Cotton Example. ASABE 2018 Annu. Int. Meet. 2018, 1800013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
49. Baydar, G.; Ciliz, N.; Mammadov, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton Textile Products in Turkey. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 104 , 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
50. Bech, N.M.; Birkved, M.; Charnley, F.; Kjaer, L.L.; Pigosso, D.C.A.; Hauschild, M.Z.; McAloone, T.C.; Moreno, M. Evaluating the Environmental Performance of a Product/Service-System Business Model for Merino Wool Next-to-Skin Garments: The Case of Armadillo Merino ® . Sustainability 2019, 11 , 5854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
51. Bevilacqua, M.; Ciarapica, F.E.; Mazzuto, G.; Paciarotti, C. Environmental Analysis of a Cotton Yarn Supply Chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 82 , 154–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
52. Bianco, I.; Gerboni, R.; Picerno, G.; Blengini, G.A. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of MWool ® Recycled Wool Fibers. Resources 2022, 11 , 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
53. Biswas, W.K.; Graham, J.; Kelly, K.; John, M.B. Global Warming Contributions from Wheat, Sheep Meat and Wool Production in Victoria, Australia-a Life Cycle Assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18 , 1386–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
54. Busi, E.; Maranghi, S.; Corsi, L.; Basosi, R. Environmental Sustainability Evaluation of Innovative Self-Cleaning Textiles. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 133 , 439–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
55. Costa, A.F.S.; Aragão, J.V.S.; Duarte, A.D.; Macêdo, J.S.; Galdino, C.J.S.; Milanez, V.F.A.; Silva, G.L.; Sarubbo, L.A. Analysis of the Environmental Life Cycle of Dyeing in Textiles. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2021, 86 , 727–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
56. De Saxce, M.; Pesnel, S.; Perwuelz, A. LCA of Bed Sheets—Some Relevant Parameters for Lifetime Assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 37 , 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
57. Esteve-Turrillas, F.A.; de la Guardia, M. Environmental Impact of Recover Cotton in Textile Industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 116 , 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
58. Farrant, L.; Olsen, S.I.; Wangel, A. Environmental Benefits from Reusing Clothes. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2010, 15 , 726–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
59. Fidan, F.; Aydoğan, E.K.; Uzal, N. An Integrated Life Cycle Assessment Approach for Denim Fabric Production Using Recycled Cotton Fibers and Combined Heat and Power Plant. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 287 , 125439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
60. González-García, S.; Hospido, A.; Feijoo, G.; Moreira, M.T. Life Cycle Assessment of Raw Materials for Non-Wood Pulp Mills: Hemp and Flax. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54 , 923–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
61. Gonzalez, V.; Lou, X.; Chi, T. Evaluating Environmental Impact of Natural and Synthetic Fibers: A Life Cycle Assessment Approach. Sustainability 2023, 15 , 7670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
62. Horn, S.; Mölsä, K.M.; Sorvari, J.; Tuovila, H.; Heikkilä, P. Environmental Sustainability Assessment of a Polyester T-Shirt—Comparison of Circularity Strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 884 , 163821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
63. Kazan, H.; Akgul, D.; Kerc, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton Woven Shirts and Alternative Manufacturing Techniques. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2020, 22 , 849–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
64. La Rosa, A.D.; Grammatikos, S.A. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton and Other Natural Fibers for Textile Applications. Fibers 2019, 7 , 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
65. L’Abbate, P.; Dassisti, M.; Cappelletti, G.M.; Nicoletti, G.M.; Russo, C.; Ioppolo, G. Environmental Analysis of Polyester Fabric for Ticking. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172 , 735–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
66. Lenzo, P.; Traverso, M.; Mondello, G.; Salomone, R.; Ioppolo, G. Sustainability Performance of an Italian Textile Product. Economies 2018, 6 , 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
67. Liu, Y.; Huang, H.; Zhu, L.; Zhang, C.; Ren, F.; Liu, Z. Could the Recycled Yarns Substitute for the Virgin Cotton Yarns: A Comparative LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25 , 2050–2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
68. Mahiat, T.; Alam, M.A.A.; Argho, M.; Corlett, J.; Chowdhury, R.B.; Biswas, K.F.; Hossain, M.M.; Sujauddin, M. Modeling the Environmental and Social Impacts of the Handloom Industry in Bangladesh through Life Cycle Assessment. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2023, 9 , 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
69. Manda, B.M.K.; Worrell, E.; Patel, M.K. Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of an Antibacterial T-Shirt and Supporting Business Decisions to Create Value. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 103 , 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
70. Martin, M.; Herlaar, S. Environmental and Social Performance of Valorizing Waste Wool for Sweater Production. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 25 , 425–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
71. Meyer, D.E.; Curran, M.A.; Gonzalez, M.A. An Examination of Silver Nanoparticles in Socks Using Screening-Level Life Cycle Assessment. J. Nanoparticle Res. 2011, 13 , 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
72. Moazzem, S.; Daver, F.; Crossin, E.; Wang, L. Assessing Environmental Impact of Textile Supply Chain Using Life Cycle Assessment Methodology. J. Text. Inst. 2018, 109 , 1574–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
73. Moazzem, S.; Crossin, E.; Daver, F.; Wang, L. Baseline Scenario of Carbon Footprint of Polyester T-Shirt. J. Fiber Bioeng. Inform. 2018, 11 , 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
74. Moazzem, S.; Crossin, E.; Daver, F.; Wang, L. Life Cycle Assessment of Apparel Consumption in Australia. Environ. Clim. Technol. 2021, 25 , 71–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
75. Morita, A.M.; Moore, C.C.S.; Nogueira, A.R.; Kulay, L.; da Silva Sá Ravagnani, M.A. Assessment of Potential Alternatives for Improving Environmental Trouser Jeans Manufacturing Performance in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247 , 119156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
76. Muthu, S.S.K.; Li, Y.; Hu, J.Y.; Ze, L. Carbon Footprint Reduction in the Textile Process Chain: Recycling of Textile Materials. Fibers Polym. 2012, 13 , 1065–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
77. Muthukumarana, T.T.; Karunathilake, H.P.; Punchihewa, H.K.G.; Manthilake, M.M.I.D.; Hewage, K.N. Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of the Apparel Industry in Sri Lanka: Analysis of the Energy Sources. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172 , 1346–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
78. Parisi, M.L.; Fatarella, E.; Spinelli, D.; Pogni, R.; Basosi, R. Environmental Impact Assessment of an Eco-Efficient Production for Coloured Textiles. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108 , 514–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
79. Periyasamy, A.P.; Wiener, J.; Militky, J. Life-Cycle Assessment of Denim ; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; ISBN 9780081020449. [Google Scholar]
80. Piontek, F.M.; Rapaport, M.; Müller, M. One Year of Clothing Consumption of a German Female Consumer. Procedia CIRP 2019, 80 , 417–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
81. Sandin, G.; Peters, G.M.; Svanström, M. Moving down the Cause-Effect Chain of Water and Land Use Impacts: An LCA Case Study of Textile Fibres. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 73 , 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
82. Şener Fidan, F.; Kızılkaya Aydoğan, E.; Uzal, N. The Impact of Organic Cotton Use and Consumer Habits in the Sustainability of Jean Production Using the LCA Approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30 , 8853–8867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
83. Shen, L.; Worrell, E.; Patel, M.K. Environmental Impact Assessment of Man-Made Cellulose Fibres. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 55 , 260–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
84. Shou, M.; Domenech, T. Integrating LCA and Blockchain Technology to Promote Circular Fashion—A Case Study of Leather Handbags. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 373 , 133557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
85. Sim, J.; Prabhu, V. The Life Cycle Assessment of Energy and Carbon Emissions on Wool and Nylon Carpets in the United States. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170 , 1231–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
86. Temizel-Sekeryan, S.; Hicks, A.L. Cradle-to-Grave Environmental Impact Assessment of Silver Enabled t-Shirts: Do Nano-Specific Impacts Exceed Non Nano-Specific Emissions? NanoImpact 2021, 22 , 100319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
87. Terinte, N.; Manda, B.M.K.; Taylor, J.; Schuster, K.C.; Patel, M.K. Environmental Assessment of Coloured Fabrics and Opportunities for Value Creation: Spin-Dyeing versus Conventional Dyeing of Modal Fabrics. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 72 , 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
88. van der Velden, N.M.; Kuusk, K.; Köhler, A.R. Life Cycle Assessment and Eco-Design of Smart Textiles: The Importance of Material Selection Demonstrated through e-Textile Product Redesign. Mater. Des. 2015, 84 , 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
89. Van Der Velden, N.M.; Patel, M.K.; Vogtländer, J.G. LCA Benchmarking Study on Textiles Made of Cotton, Polyester, Nylon, Acryl, or Elastane. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19 , 331–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
90. van der Werf, H.M.G.; Turunen, L. The Environmental Impacts of the Production of Hemp and Flax Textile Yarn. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2008, 27 , 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
91. Walser, T.; Demou, E.; Lang, D.J.; Hellweg, S. Prospective Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Nanosilver T-Shirts. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45 , 4570–4578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
92. Wang, C.; Wang, L.; Liu, X.; Du, C.; Ding, D.; Jia, J.; Yan, Y.; Wu, G. Carbon Footprint of Textile throughout Its Life Cycle: A Case Study of Chinese Cotton Shirts. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108 , 464–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
93. Wiedemann, S.G.; Yan, M.J.; Henry, B.K.; Murphy, C.M. Resource Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Three Wool Production Regions in Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 122 , 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
94. Wiedemann, S.G.; Simmons, A.; Watson, K.J.L.; Biggs, L. Effect of Methodological Choice on the Estimated Impacts of Wool Production and the Significance for LCA-Based Rating Systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24 , 848–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
95. Wiedemann, S.G.; Ledgard, S.F.; Henry, B.K.; Yan, M.J.; Mao, N.; Russell, S.J. Application of Life Cycle Assessment to Sheep Production Systems: Investigating Co-Production of Wool and Meat Using Case Studies from Major Global Producers. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20 , 463–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
96. Wiedemann, S.G.; Biggs, L.; Nebel, B.; Bauch, K.; Laitala, K.; Klepp, I.G.; Swan, P.G.; Watson, K. Environmental Impacts Associated with the Production, Use, and End-of-Life of a Woollen Garment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25 , 1486–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
97. Wiedemann, S.G.; Biggs, L.; Clarke, S.J.; Russell, S.J. Reducing the Environmental Impacts of Garments through Industrially Scalable Closed-Loop Recycling: Life Cycle Assessment of a Recycled Wool Blend Sweater. Sustainability 2022, 14 , 1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
98. Wu, Z. Haode Evaluating the Life-Cycle Environmental Impacts of Polyester Sports T-Shirts. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 474 , 022017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
99. Yacout, D.M.M.; Abd El-Kawi, M.A.; Hassouna, M.S. Cradle to Gate Environmental Impact Assessment of Acrylic Fiber Manufacturing. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21 , 326–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
100. Yang, Y.; He, W.; Chen, F.; Wang, L. Water Footprint Assessment of Silk Apparel in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260 , 121050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
101. Liu, Y.; Zhu, L.; Zhang, C.; Ren, F.; Huang, H.; Liu, Z. Life Cycle Assessment of Melange Yarns from the Manufacturer Perspective. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25 , 588–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
102. Zhang, S.; Xu, C.; Xie, R.; Yu, H.; Sun, M.; Li, F. Environmental Assessment of Fabric Wet Processing from Gate-to-Gate Perspective: Comparative Study of Weaving and Materials. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 857 , 159495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
103. Zhang, Y.; Liu, X.; Xiao, R.; Yuan, Z. Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton T-Shirts in China. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20 , 994–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
104. Bhalla, K.; Kumar, T.; Rangaswamy, J. An Integrated Rural Development Model Based on Comprehensive Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Khadi-Handloom Industry in Rural India. Procedia CIRP 2018, 69 , 493–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
105. Braun, G.; Som, C.; Schmutz, M.; Hischier, R. Environmental Consequences of Closing the Textile Loop-Life Cycle Assessment of a Circular Polyester Jacket. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11 , 2964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
106. Hicks, A.L.; Theis, T.L. A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Commercially Available Household Silver-Enabled Polyester Textiles. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22 , 256–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
107. Rana, S.; Karunamoorthy, S.; Parveen, S.; Fangueiro, R. Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton Textiles and Clothing. In Handbook of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Textiles and Clothing ; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 195–216. [Google Scholar]
108. Zhao, M.; Zhou, Y.; Meng, J.; Zheng, H.; Cai, Y.; Shan, Y.; Guan, D.; Yang, Z. Virtual Carbon and Water Flows Embodied in Global Fashion Trade—A Case Study of Denim Products. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 303 , 127080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
109. Bianco, I.; Picerno, G.; Blengini, G.A. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Worsted and Woollen Processing in Wool Production: ReviWool ® Noils and Other Wool Co-Products. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 415 , 137877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
110. Mölsä, K.M.; Horn, S.; Dahlbo, H.; Rissanen, M. Linear, Reuse or Recycling? An Environmental Comparison of Different Life Cycle Options for Cotton Roller Towels. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 374 , 133976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
111. Selli, F.; Kornhan, S.; Kaya, A.; Erdogan, U.H. Effect of Reprocess on the Sustainability of T-Shirt Production. J. Text. Eng. 2022, 1 , 254–259. [Google Scholar]
112. Siagian, Y.Y.; Sinaga, R.; Sinaga, C.; Manik, Y. Life Cycle Assessment and Eco-Efficiency Indicator for Ulos Weaving Using Loom Machine in Toba Samosir Regency of North Sumatra. E3S Web Conf. 2018, 74 , 05002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
113. Parker, G. Measuring the Environmental Performance of Food Packaging: Life Cycle Assessment ; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Sawston, UK, 2008; ISBN 9781845691943. [Google Scholar]
114. Steinberger, J.K.; Friot, D.; Jolliet, O.; Erkman, S. A Spatially Explicit Life Cycle Inventory of the Global Textile Chain. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2009, 14 , 443–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
115. Textile Exchange. Preferred Fiber & Materials: Market Report 2022 ; Textile Exchange: Lamesa, TX, USA, 2022; pp. 1–118. [Google Scholar]
116. Al-Ghussain, L. Global Warming: Review on Driving Forces and Mitigation. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2019, 38 , 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
117. Barcelos, S.M.B.D.; Salvador, R.; Barros, M.V.; de Francisco, A.C.; Guedes, G. Circularity of Brazilian Silk: Promoting a Circular Bioeconomy in the Production of Silk Cocoons. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 296 , 113373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
118. Hernandez, E.; Nowack, B.; Mitrano, D.M. Polyester Textiles as a Source of Microplastics from Households: A Mechanistic Study to Understand Microfiber Release during Washing. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 , 7036–7046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
119. Abbate, S.; Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Nadeem, S.P.; Riccio, E. Sustainability Trends and Gaps in the Textile, Apparel and Fashion Industries. In Environment, Development and Sustainability ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
120. Sandin, G.; Peters, G.M. Environmental Impact of Textile Reuse and Recycling—A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 184 , 353–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
121. Van Eynde, H. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Hemp and Cotton Fibres Used in Chinese Textile Manufacturing. Master’s Thesis, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 2015; 158p. [Google Scholar]
122. Yukseler, H.; Uzal, N.; Sahinkaya, E.; Kitis, M.; Dilek, F.B.; Yetis, U. Analysis of the Best Available Techniques for Wastewaters from a Denim Manufacturing Textile Mill. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 203 , 1118–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
123. Patti, A.; Cicala, G.; Acierno, D. Eco-Sustainability of the Textile Production: Waste Recovery and Current Recycling in the Composites World. Polymers 2021, 13 , 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
124. Rashid, M.E.; Khan, M.R.; Haque, R.U.; Hasanuzzaman, M. Challenges of Textile Waste Composite Products and Its Prospects of Recycling. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2023, 25 , 1267–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]