Impact Assessment and Product Life Cycle Analysis of Different Jersey Fabrics Using Conventional, Post-Industrial, and Post-Consumer Recycled Cotton Fibers

Abstract

The textile industry generates a large amount of waste, producing approximately 92 million tons of textile waste annually, much of which ends up in landfills. This alarming figure highlights the need for an urgent waste management strategy. Mechanical recycling has emerged and is being explored as an alternative to manage this waste, enabling the transformation of discarded textiles into recycled fibers for the production of new materials. In this study, a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was conducted for five different knitted fabrics, considering the origin of their cotton content: from virgin cotton to post-industrial and post-consumer recycled cotton fibers, to evaluate the environmental impact of each fabric. The analysis revealed that the spinning, dyeing, and finishing processes were the primary contributors across multiple environmental impact categories. Specifically, for the Water Scarcity Potential (WSP) indicator, these processes accounted for 96% of the total impact. In terms of raw material contributions to water scarcity, organic cotton fiber had the highest impact at 54%, followed by post-consumer recycled cotton at 24% and post-industrial recycled cotton at 22%. Variations in environmental contributions were also observed for the remaining impact categories. A key challenge in this study is the lack of a dedicated impact category in LCA that directly quantifies the environmental benefits of using recycled materials. Specifically, current LCA methodologies do not have a standardized metric to measure the impact reduction achieved by substituting virgin fibers with recycled ones, even though comparisons indicate reduced impacts.

1. Introduction

Today, companies face an increasingly competitive market, where the ability to react promptly to challenges and changes is imperative. Easy access to information and knowledge sharing through strategic partnerships at different value chain stages are essential drivers of innovation, competitiveness, and sustainable development in the textile industry.

Global textile production nearly doubled between 2000 and 2015 [1]. These alarming data highlight the urgency of concrete actions to promote a more sustainable and responsible textile industry. The textile and apparel industry generates around 92 million tons of waste per year. According to the European Environmental Agency (EEA), textile consumption in the European Union (EU) has the biggest impact on the environment and climate change. According to findings released by the European Commission (2022) and the European Environment Agency (2023), the textile industry is among the top global consumers of water and land resources, while also ranking high in the use of raw materials and greenhouse gases emissions [2,3].

Generally, textiles are discarded as part of urban waste and then incinerated to produce energy. Globally, approximately 75% of textile waste is disposed of in landfills [4,5]. Even more concerning is that under 1% of used textiles are repurposed into new garments or fabric-based products, with recycling technologies still in the early stages of development [1,3,4,6,7,8,9,10].

According to United Nations data, the EU exported 1.4 million tons of used textiles in 2022, more than double the figure of 2000 [3]. However, not all of this clothing is reused, but is exported, for example, from Europe to Africa, where it is not resold but ends up in landfills.

There are several obstacles to overcome to significantly reduce textile waste. A McKinsey study reveals that the industry aims to recycle 2.5 million tons of textile waste by 2030 [6]. However, the European Union has not set specific targets for recycled content in clothing but aims for the majority of textile products sold in the region will be made from recycled fibers by 2030, in addition to being durable, repairable, and recyclable [7].

Under the Waste Framework Directive, EU countries are mandated to implement dedicated systems for collecting textile waste by early 2025, alongside meeting updated recycling objectives. Achieving compliance will require the rapid adaptation of existing systems for collection, sorting, and material recovery [8,9,10].

The textile industry plays a significant role in waste generation, being responsible for 5% of total waste in the world [9]. Therefore, it is imperative to use analysis methodologies to evaluate and improve the environmental performance of products.

Thus, it is mandatory to develop and apply new rules and metrics to mitigate the environmental impact of this industry, considering not only the textile production value chain but also the management of textile waste.

Assuming a circular economy (CE)-based approach, the textile industry faces many challenges related to production processes, product design, and end-of-life strategies, particularly recycling [10,11]. A variety of instruments have been introduced to evaluate circularity and life cycle performance. Among them are Circulytics, created by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and the Circular Transition Indicators (CTI) tool, launched by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) [12,13]. These tools evaluate circularity based on information provided by companies, considering practices across processes, products, and people. However, accurately measuring circularity requires robust, well-defined systems and a comprehensive understanding of how products are transformed throughout their life cycles.

In parallel, Life Cycle Assessment has emerged as a key tool for quantitatively evaluating the environmental impacts of products, helping to identify hotspots and opportunities for improvement throughout their life cycles. For effective LCA, it is essential to define key performance indicators (KPIs) for each stage of production, including material and energy consumption, waste generation, and emissions.

This study aims to address these challenges by evaluating the environmental performance of five knitted textile fabrics, with a particular focus on those incorporating post-industrial and post-consumer cotton waste. The primary objective is to conduct a comprehensive LCA of these fabrics, analyzing how different fiber compositions impact environmental outcomes. The assessment will be conducted following the internationally standards for life cycle assessment, specifically ISO 14040:2006 (Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework), which outlines the principles and framework of LCA, and ISO 14044:2006 (Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines), which defines its requirements and guidelines, ensuring a transparent and methodologically sound approach to evaluating the sustainability of textile products [14,15].

2. Background

In recent years, there has been a notable technological advance in the textile industry, reflected in increased productivity and competitiveness of companies and in the economic development of the sector. Circularity and circular business models are a theme in focus throughout the textile value chain, and there is still nothing effective and representative enough to convey the intended message [16,17,18].

2.1. Circular Economy on Textile Industry

Circular economy has gained prominence in the textile industry, with an increasing focus on the reduction, reuse, recycling, and recovery of materials throughout the life cycle of textile products. This seeks to restore and regenerate natural resources, using them efficiently, and finding value at all stages of the product’s life cycle, which means aiming to maximize resource efficiency and minimizing waste [12,18,19,20].

Table 1. Examples of practices to adopt for a circular economy carried out by the author of this article according to the information in ref. [12,19].

Stage of the Value Chain	Practices to Adopt for a Circular Economy
Raw Material TAKE	Choose natural fibers instead of blended materials.
	Work closely with raw material suppliers.
	Assess and quantify the environmental impact of production processes, including water consumption and chemicals, particularly in dyeing.
	Adoption of more sustainable dyeing techniques and use low-impact dyeing processes
Production/Manufacturing MAKE	Use modular design techniques and optimize cutting processes, such as laser cutting.
	Present timeless collections instead of seasonal ones.
	Establish strategic partnerships to expand capacity and resources, leveraging the knowledge and experience of other organizations.
Consumption USE	Use suitable care practices to prolong the lifespan of textile products, such as proper washing instructions.
	Encourage upcycling, repair initiatives, and take-back programs or partnerships.
Disposal WASTE	Recycling
	Invest in more efficient waste management systems, such as textile recycling, and in water and effluent treatment technologies, including water recycling.

presents some CE practices that can be adopted, considering the phase of the value chain in which they fit. These CE practices are powered by technological innovation, playing a fundamental role in this transition from a linear economy to a circular economy, driving the transformation of business models, and promoting environmental sustainability.

The circularity of a material refers to its ability to be reintegrated into production cycles, minimizing the extraction of natural resources and waste generation. The concept of the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, and recycle) is closely linked to the circular economy, making this an essential approach to waste management [21].

The new waste management hierarchy expands the principles of the 3Rs to the 5Rs. The 5Rs (renew, reduce, reuse, restore and recycle) act as guidelines to minimize waste. Recycling should only be considered as a last resort when other options are not viable [22].

In the circular economy concept, waste recovery and valorization allow the reuse of materials in the supply chain. The goal is to mitigate the existence of waste or risks to the environment, turning the value chain into an infinite cycle [18,23,24].

Embracing the principles of CE, this study highlights the importance of recycling in closing the loop within the textile value chain. By incorporating post-industrial and post-consumer cotton waste into the development of new fabrics, the research highlights the potential to decrease the demand for virgin raw materials while minimizing the environmental impact related to textile disposal. This approach transforms textile waste into a valuable resource, showcasing how circular strategies can transform the industry and shift linear production models into closed-loop systems.

2.2. Innovative Technologies

The textile industry has seen an increase in innovative technologies and process development that promote circularity. This includes the use of biodegradable materials, the application of sustainable design techniques, the implementation of more efficient waste management systems, and the recycling of textile fibers.

Implementing more efficient waste management systems is a growing concern in the textile industry, intending to reduce environmental impact and promote circularity. The creation of systems for collecting post-industrial- and pre-/post-consumer-discarded textile products has gained great prominence in recent years. Efforts have been made not only regarding the collection of textile materials but, mainly, regarding their separation or sorting so that they can be reused or recycled. The main goal is to reduce the number of materials that mostly end up in landfills. By collecting these discarded textile materials, and making it possible to reuse or recycle them, we are reintroducing them into the value chain, reducing, for example, the need to use virgin raw materials. This approach contributes to reducing the consumption of natural resources and minimizing the environmental impact associated with textile production [1].

According to the report published by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 73% of post-consumer textile waste is incinerated or landfilled and only 1% corresponds to reuse in a closed circuit, with the production of the same type of articles. The report also shows that only 12% of textile waste is recycled, with the material obtained being incorporated into lower-value items (downcycling), such as insulation and filling material. There are also 12% losses associated with the production process (post-industrial) and 2% losses in the process of collecting and treating post-consumer waste [1].

In reports released in 2021 and 2022, Textile Exchange noted a gradual rise in closed-loop reuse and post-consumer recycling, with figures increasing from 0.06% to 0.18% of overall material input (8,623 tons) between 2018 and 2020 and reaching 0.6% (37,153 tons) by 2021 [25].

Figure 1, based on the 2023 Textile Exchange report, presents the distribution of raw material flows. The Sankey diagram highlights three primary categories: conventional virgin inputs (44%), renewable resources (42%), and recycled content (14%). The recycled portion is further divided into materials derived from textiles and non-textile sources, predominantly plastics. Within the textile-derived segment, three subcategories are identified: post-industrial, pre-consumer, and post-consumer waste—with the latter representing just 4% of the overall material flow. Additionally, of the materials collected for reuse under the 5R strategy (comprising 14.6% of the total), only a small fraction—0.6%—is considered unfit for anything other than recycling [26].

A 2022 report by McKinsey & Company, “Scaling Textile Recycling in Europe: Turning Waste into Value”, highlights that the closed-loop recycling of textile waste—both pre- and post-consumer—could handle between 18% and 26% of Europe’s textile waste by 2030, supporting the creation of new yarns for woven and knitted fabrics [6].

One of the most successful cases in Portugal is the company Valérius 360. Valérius 360 uses garment-cutting waste as its main raw material (post-industrial 100% cotton). The company collects this waste from the Valérius manufacturing factories but also from other clothing companies that are interested in contributing positively to what would be the final destination of this waste. There are criteria that manufacturers must adopt to be part of this circle, such as prior separation by composition and color. Subsequently, after the waste is delivered to Valérius 360, an analysis is carried out to validate the raw material to be used.

Different types of textile waste are used as raw materials. When waste comes from the manufacturers, leftovers, or trimmings, are called post-industrial waste. When it includes fabrics or garments that cannot be sold or used, for example, defective parts, excess stock, or returns—they are discarded before being used and are considered pre-consumer waste. Post-consumer waste is all materials, or clothing that has already been used, that are worn out, damaged, and of no value to consumers after their useful life [4,27,28,29].

2.3. Impact Measurement: Life Cycle Assessment

Assessing the circularity of material involves multiple aspects, such as the efficiency of resource use, the durability of the material, recyclability, reincorporation into the production chain, and the minimization of environmental impacts. According to a study carried out by Elia et al., 2017, the measurement of circularity can be supported by four areas: process monitoring, actions involved, requirements to be measured, and, finally, implementation [30].

Currently, there are several approaches and indicators proposed to measure circularity. Some examples include circularity indices, resource footprint, life cycle analysis (LCA), and eco-design assessments, among others.

Methods such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) can provide a comprehensive view of impacts throughout the textile product’s life cycle, from raw material extraction to final disposal. In the context of the textile industry, LCA can be used to analyze the consumption of natural resources, such as water and energy, greenhouse gas emissions, the toxicity of chemicals used, the generation of waste, and other environmental impacts.

According to ISO 14040:2006 and 14044:2006 issue year is, life cycle assessment can identify the following [14,15]:

• Opportunities for improving the environmental performance of products at different stages of the life cycle;
• Definition of priorities for optimizing products or processes—can help with decision-making and drive the adoption of more sustainable and circular practices in the textile industry;
• Definition of relevant environmental performance indicators, including measurement methods;
• Marketing—the only way to convince the industry to opt for more sustainable raw materials and processes, with the presentation of specific and real data on the costs and benefits of each product and/or process.

The use of methods such as LCA is essential for evaluating circularity in the textile industry, allowing a more complete understanding of environmental and social impacts throughout the product’s life cycle.

3. Methodology

To prevent waste, with emphasis on textiles, new technologies and processes have been developed, as well as new tools to calculate the sector’s environmental impact. One of the tools that has become a crucial instrument for understanding and addressing the ecological footprint of fashion and apparel brands is the LCA. The results are presented through different indicators (such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, non-renewable energy consumption, and water consumption, among others) and can be used as a basis for choosing materials and processes with a lower impact. To carry out this analysis, the SimaPro software, version 9.1.1, a widely recognized tool for conducting LCA, was used to calculate the environmental impacts of the five knit fabrics under analysis. The methodology used to assess impacts was the EPD method (2018), version v1.01. The database used was ecoinvent (version 3.8, 2021).

3.1. Identifying Supply Chain Processes

In the textile industry, production processes are interrelated in the sense that the final product of one process generally corresponds to the raw material of the next process. The textile production process consists of four main processes: spinning, fabric production (weaving or knitting), finishing (dyeing, finishing, and printing), and manufacturing.

Textile recycling encompasses the recovery and transformation of textile materials originating from various stages of production and consumption, including knitting and garment manufacturing. The process involves several key stages: collection, sorting, processing, and material transformation. At the recycling facility, operations begin with the sorting of textile waste. For post-industrial waste, such as cutting scraps generated during garment manufacturing, materials are directly delivered to the recycling unit. These materials are then sorted by color and fiber composition, with processing limited to textile inputs composed of 100% cotton to ensure material compatibility and fiber quality.

In contrast, post-consumer waste requires more intensive preparation. Garments are first sent to specialized sorting centers, where non-textile elements—such as embellishments, buttons, zippers, and threads—are manually removed. Once properly separated and identified, the textiles are compressed into bales and forwarded to the recycling unit.

At the recycling unit, the transformation process begins with mechanical fiber recovery, followed by spinning. The spinning line is equipped to process the reclaimed fibers into new yarns. The process starts with feeding fiber slivers from the laminating unit into the spinning machinery. The yarn is then formed and wound directly onto cones, ready for the subsequent knitting process.

The resulting yarn is sent to a knitting facility, where it is used to produce knitted fabric. Following the knitting process, the greige fabric is transferred to the dyeing and finishing unit, where it undergoes the necessary treatments to achieve the desired color, texture, and final properties, resulting in the finished textile product.

Figure 2 presents a schematic overview of the process flow, highlighting the inputs and outputs associated with each stage.

3.2. Product Specifications

This study focused on developing a textile material with a blend of fibers at 60% organic cotton, 20% post-industrial cotton, and 20% post-consumer cotton, using a Ne 20/1 yarn, to obtain a Jersey of 215 g/m². The other four fabrics used for comparison in this study share the same yarn count but differ in their cotton fiber origin, as detailed in

Table 2. Fabrics used during the study.

Reference	Fabric Structure	Yarn Count [Ne]	Fabric Composition
S1	Jersey	20/1	100% Cotton
S2			100% Organic Cotton
S3			60% Organic Cotton/40% Cotton
S4			50% Organic Cotton/50% Post-Industrial Recycled Cotton
DS_1			60% Organic Cotton/20% Post-Industrial Recycled Cotton/20% Post-Consumer Recycled Cotton

.

Fabrics S1, S2, and S3 are made using yarn produced through ring-spun technology, while fabrics S4 and the newly developed fabric DP_S1 are created from yarn made using open-end technology.

Ring-spun technology involves a detailed process of continuously twisting fibers to form yarn, resulting in a finer, stronger, and smoother final product. This twisting action tightly binds the fibers together, leading to improved fiber alignment and strength. On the other hand, open-end technology, also known as rotor spinning, utilizes a fundamentally different approach. In this process, fibers are fed into a high-speed rotor, which twists them into yarn. While this technology allows for higher production rates, it also reduces operational costs compared to the ring-spun method [31,32,33].

Table 3. Technical product specifications.

Product Reference	Developed Sample—DS_1
Structure	Jersey
Composition	60% Organic Cotton/20% Recycled Cotton Post-Industrial/20% Recycled Cotton Post-Consumer
Weight (g/m2)	215 (±5%)
Width (m)	1.65 (±5%)
Shrinkage NP EN ISO 6330 [34] (40 °C line dry)	Length ± 7%|Width ± 7%
Spirality NP EN ISO 16322-2 [35] (40 °C line dry)	3% max
Pilling Box NP EN ISO 12945-1 [36](11,000 rot)	3

contains the details of the parameters of the developed product, DS_1.

3.3. Life Cycle Assessment

From the data collected in the inventory, the most relevant environmental indicators for the process under analysis were determined: electricity consumption, fuel consumption, water consumption, chemical product consumption, air emissions, water emissions, and production of waste.

The EPD methodology (2018), version v1.01, evaluates eight environmental impact categories, all of which were considered in this study due to their relevance to textile production. Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a key indicator for assessing greenhouse gas emissions, Ozone Layer Depletion Potential (ODP) measures the potential degradation of the stratospheric ozone layer caused by emissions of ozone-depleting substances. Acidification Potential (AP) evaluates the acidifying effects of atmospheric emissions such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides on soil and aquatic systems, leading to environmental issues such as forest decline and acidified water bodies. Eutrophication Potential (EP) assesses the over-enrichment of aquatic environments with nutrients, often resulting in harmful algal blooms and oxygen depletion. Photochemical Oxidant Formation Potential (POFP) quantifies the formation of ground-level ozone and smog, caused by the reaction of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides under sunlight. Abiotic Depletion Potential—Elements (ADP-E) measures the depletion of non-renewable mineral resources, including metals and rare elements used in industrial processes, while Abiotic Depletion Potential—Fossil Resources (ADP-FR) assesses the consumption of fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas, contributing to resource scarcity and associated emissions. Lastly, Water Scarcity Potential (WSP) evaluates the impact of freshwater use in regions under water stress, emphasizing the competition for limited water resources. The EPD method allows for a comprehensive cradle-to-grave assessment of environmental impacts, covering all life cycle stages—from raw material extraction and manufacturing to use and end-of-life—being suited to textile applications, where variability in fiber composition, processing technologies, and waste treatment options significantly affects the overall environmental footprint. This methodology is guided by Product Category Rules (PCRs) specific to textile fabrics, ensuring consistency in defining functional units, system boundaries, and environmental indicators relevant to the sector.

The definition of the functional unit is one of the most critical steps in a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), as it provides the reference basis for quantifying and comparing the environmental impacts of products. Accordingly, the quantities of cotton used at each stage of the production process were adjusted to ensure consistency in mass balance for the target product. The functional unit adopted in this study is 1 kg of finished knitted fabric.

A “cradle-to-gate” approach was adopted, encompassing all stages from raw material cultivation (cotton growing) to the finishing of the knitted fabric, which constitutes the final product assessed. The system boundaries were divided into three stages: UPSTREAM, CORE, and DOWNSTREAM. The UPSTREAM stage includes processes not performed by the Valérius Group, such as organic cotton cultivation. The CORE stage comprises all processes carried out within the Valérius Group, including fiber recycling, spinning, knitting, and fabric finishing. Processes beyond the gate of fabric production, such as cutting and sewing, transport to the final customer, and consumer use, were excluded from this assessment. These DOWNSTREAM stages were not considered, as the focus of the present study is specifically on the environmental performance of fabric development, which represents the main commercial textile product of RDD Textiles.

4. Results and Discussion

This LCA study quantifies the environmental impact associated with fabric production, with the reference/identification DS_1 and with the specifications and composition defined in Section 3.2 (Table 2) of this document.

The results are presented considering the boundaries of the defined systems, UPSTREAM and CORE, respectively:

I.

UPSTREAM includes the upstream processes—the production stage of organic cotton fibers—that are not carried out in the Valérius facilities and the production of post-industrial and post-consumer fibers produced in Valérius 360.

II.

CORE, which are all production processes carried out in Valérius companies—spinning, knitting, dyeing, and finishing.

4.1. Product Life Cycle Assessment Analysis

CORE processes (recycling, spinning, knitting, dyeing, and finishing) have greater relative contributions to the different categories of environmental impact. The Water Scarcity Potential (WSP) indicator makes a contribution of 96%.

According to information found in the literature, the production of cotton fiber represents 95% of the total water consumption, with only 5% representing the processing stage of the textile product. To produce 1 kg of textile material, 100–150 L of water is required. However, the amount of water may vary depending on the type of textile structure, dyes and chemicals, processes, and machinery used during processing [37,38]. It is important to note that the values presented are relative to obtaining conventional cotton fiber.

Considering that the production of organic cotton fiber is carried out without the use of synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers and has many conventional systems that use rainwater instead of irrigation, it is expected that the impact on the production of this fiber will be lower than that of obtaining conventional fiber [39,40].

The processes included in CORE also make a contribution of 72% to the Abiotic Depletion Potential—Fossil Resources (ADP-FR) indicator, followed by a 63% contribution to the Global Warming indicator (GWP100a). For these indicators, we consider the use of fossil resources and the emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) to be relevant.

Figure 3 shows the environmental impact of the production of conventional and organic cotton fiber. As we can see, in the case of organic cotton, the WSP impact category makes a contribution of 16% ($9.46\times {10}^{-1}{\mathrm{m}}^3\mathrm{e}\mathrm{q}./\mathrm{k}\mathrm{g} \mathrm{f}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{c})$, while in the case of conventional cotton, the environmental impact contribution is 84% (5$.11\times {10}^1 {\mathrm{m}}^3\mathrm{e}\mathrm{q}./\mathrm{k}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{c})$.

Figure 4 presents the results obtained from the comparative analysis by fiber type and their relative contribution by impact category for DS_1. When analyzing the figure, it can be seen that organic cotton fiber makes the greatest contribution to the Water Scarcity Potential impact category, with a weight of 54%.

Figure 5 shows the contribution of the different processing phases in each impact category. As can be seen, the process with the greatest contribution to the WSP impact category is the finishing process, with a weight of 63%.

When analyzing Figure 5, it is possible to highlight two processes that contribute significantly to the ADP-FR impact indicator—spinning and finishing, with a weight of 34% and 32%, respectively. These results are mainly associated with the consumption of fossil fuels for energy production—natural gas and electricity. In the case of the Global Warming Potential indicator, greater energy consumption leads to increased atmospheric emissions.

The indicator with the lowest contribution to the processes included in CORE is Eutrophication Potential (EP), which reflects the effects of nitrification, resulting from the addition of nutrients to the soil—4%. The high amounts of energy required for the processes included in CORE contribute considerably to CO₂ emissions and, in turn, to the Acidification Potential (AP) impact category, in this case, 35%.

The processes included in UPSTREAM (fiber production) present a greater contribution to the environmental impact category of Eutrophication Potential, which reflects the excess of water body nutrients, such as nitrates, phosphates, and sulfates, present mainly in fertilizers that are applied in cotton plantations and can contaminate groundwater.

To assess in detail which production process has the greatest contribution, it is necessary to analyze the environmental impact categories for each production process individually (Figure 5).

The production of organic cotton fiber is the process responsible for the highest impacts in the categories of acidification and eutrophication, the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and, mainly, the area required to cultivate this raw material.

In the Water Scarcity Potential (WSP) indicator, the production process that makes the greatest contribution is the finishing process, with a weight of 63%. However, for the product under study, it would be expected for this category that the fiber production process would also present a significant value considering the water required to produce this raw material—to produce 1kg of cotton, 10,000 L (10 m³) of water is needed. In the production of organic cotton, this consumption drops by around 91%, which means that to produce 1 kg of organic cotton, 0.9 m³ (900 L) of water is needed. However, although the amount of water used in the finishing process is lower, $2.81\times {10}^{-2}{\mathrm{m}}^3$ of water per kg of fabric, this process still involves the use of large amounts of energy and various chemical products. This makes a significant contribution to most environmental impact indicators [40].

In terms of the scarcity of fossil resources (ADP-FR), considering the high energy consumption for the spinning and finishing phases, contributions of 34% and 32% were obtained. Although the facilities are equipped with photovoltaic systems with an efficiency of 34% for the recycling unit and 27% for the finishing facility, this consumption continues to be significant, being associated with the energy consumed by part of the various machines used.

The production of organic cotton fiber and spinning makes the largest contribution to the Global Warming Potential (GWP) category with impacts of 34% and 33%, respectively. In the case of the spinning process, it is essentially due to the impact associated with the consumption of electrical energy, and in the case of cotton fiber production, the result obtained is mainly related to the use and maintenance of large territorial extensions to obtain it. In Figure 6, we can see the impact of each process individually for the Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Ozone Layer Potential (ODP) impact categories.

The production of organic cotton fiber also makes the largest contribution to the ozone layer depletion (ODP) impact category—51%. For this indicator, the finishing process does not make a high contribution since the dyeing process was not considered for the processing of DS_1. Therefore, this process does not involve the use of dyes and thus consumes less water and chemicals when compared to the conventional dyeing process.

Figure 7 presents the comparison results for the process without dyeing (de-sizing—used in the production/finishing of DS_1) and the process with dyeing.

In the process in which the dyeing of the material takes place, dyes and chemicals necessary for coloring the finished fabric are used, and additional washing steps are also necessary, resulting in higher water consumption.

When comparing the conventional dyeing process to the process used to obtain the product DS_1, we found significant differences in water consumption as expected. The additional steps in the fabric finishing process require not only water for dyeing but also for subsequent washes and related treatments. Figure 8 shows the contribution of the different processing phases in each impact category, considering the dyeing processes. Considering the addition of the dyeing process, it is possible to verify that several environmental impact indicators acquire greater relevance.

Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11 present the comparative results for the impact categories Global Warming Potential, Abiotic Depletion Potential, and Water Scarcity Potential considering the dyeing process.

Comparing the two processes, with and without dyeing, we see an increase of $6.41\times {10}^{-1}\mathrm{k}\mathrm{g}{CO}_2 eq.$ for $2.72\mathrm{k}\mathrm{g}{CO}_2 eq.$ for the Global Warming Potential impact category—Figure 9.

The GWP environmental impact indicator considers greenhouse gases, with the results of the kg indicator being equivalent to CO₂ per functional unit. Given the CO₂ emissions mentioned, we expect the GWP indicator to be higher when taking the dyeing process into account.

In Figure 10, we can observe the differences obtained for the ADP-E and ADP-FR impact categories, respectively. In terms of the scarcity of fossil resources (ADP-FR), the value of energy consumption considering the dyeing process is higher, in this case, $3.15\times {10}^1 \mathrm{M}\mathrm{J}/\mathrm{k}\mathrm{g}$ instead of $9.73 \mathrm{M}\mathrm{J}/\mathrm{k}\mathrm{g}$.

Regarding the water consumption required for the process, as would be expected, there is a greater need for this resource for processing the dyed fabric—$1.55\times {10}^1 {\mathrm{m}}^3$ instead of $1.07 {\mathrm{m}}^3$ (Figure 11).

Table 4. Savings based on the fabric process, excluding the dyeing stage.

Impact Category	Unit	Savings
Acidification potential (AP)	kg SO2 eq	76%
Eutrophication potential (EP)	kg PO4 eq	82%
Global warming potential (GWP100a)	kg CO2 eq	76%
Photochemical oxidation potential (POFP)	kg NMVOC	65%
Abiotic depletion potential—elements (ADP-E)	kg Sb eq	78%
Abiotic depletion potential—fossil fuels (ADP-FR)	MJ	69%
Water scarcity potential (WSP)	m3 eq	93%
Ozone layer depletion potential (ODP)	kg CFC-11 eq	75%

presents the savings from using the finishing process as an alternative to the dyeing and finishing process, by category of environmental impact.

From the results and analyses carried out, it is possible to verify that the dyeing process contributes significantly (>75%) to the environmental impact indicators Acidification Potential, Eutrophication Potential, Global Warming Potential, Abiotic Depletion Potential—Elements, and Water Scarcity Potential.

Regarding the used raw material, virgin organic cotton fiber, post-industrial recycled cotton fiber and post-consumer cotton fiber, there are differences in the impact categories that we must consider.

Table 5. Results for each category of environmental impact considering the origin of the fiber when compared to the blend used for the production of product DS_1.

Impact Category	S1 100% Cotton	S2 100% Organic Cotton	S3 60% Organic Cotton/40% Cotton	S4 50% Organic Cotton/50% Post-Industrial Recycled Cotton
Acidification potential (AP)	65%	31%	34%	−7%
Eutrophication potential (EP)	−21%	41%	17%	−11%
Global warming potential (GWP100a)	74%	20%	40%	−2%
Photochemical oxidation potential (POFP)	77%	26%	44%	−4%
Abiotic depletion potential—elements (ADP-E)	92%	29%	70%	3%
Abiotic depletion potential—fossil fuels (ADP-FR)	75%	15%	40%	−1%
Water scarcity potential (WSP)	97%	82%	90%	82%
Ozone layer depletion potential (ODP)	84%	25%	54%	−4%

presents the results for each environmental impact category considering the type/origin of the fiber when compared with the mixture used to obtain DS_1 (60% virgin organic cotton fiber, 20% post-industrial recycled cotton fiber, and 20% post-consumer recycled cotton fiber).

As can be seen, the blend considered for the development of the product under study, DS_1, has significant improvements when compared to 100% conventional cotton (S1), 100% organic cotton (S2), and the blend of 60% organic cotton with 40% conventional cotton (S3).

For the environmental impact category Eutrophication Potential, it appears that conventional cotton has better performance compared to the use of organic cotton, i.e., −21% and 41%, respectively. This result can be considered, at first analysis, to be anomalous; however, it is explained by the calculation basis used. Since the basis for comparison is 1 kg of material, the lower yield associated with organic cotton cultivation accounts for the observed differences in values. The true benefits of organic cotton become apparent when using a calculation basis related to the area of cultivation, such as per hectare. In this context, the amount of conventional cotton fiber obtained is greater than that of organic cotton for the same area of land [41].

The presented results were obtained based on the origin of the cotton fiber, with the aim of highlighting the environmental benefits of replacing conventional and/or organic cotton with recycled cotton. However, producing 1 kg of finished fabric does not require equivalent inputs across all fiber types. Variations in agricultural yield, fiber quality, and processing efficiency influence the environmental impacts associated with each cotton source. Consequently, using fabric mass as the sole functional unit may constrain the accuracy of comparative assessments. Moreover, considering the known challenges in accurately modeling impacts for conventional and organic cotton, even greater care must be taken when establishing reliable assumptions for recycled cotton.

Figure 12 presents the comparative results for the impact categories of Acidification Potential, Eutrophication Potential, and Global Warming Potential, considering different origins of cotton fiber. As can be seen, DS_1 is, in general, the material that makes the lowest contribution to the impact categories under analysis. For the Eutrophication Potential impact category, conventional cotton makes a lower contribution as a result of the yield associated with cotton [41,42].

It is important to note that both the cotton blend in DS_1 and the blend of organic cotton with post-industrial recycled cotton in fabric S4 exhibit similar contributions across the outlined environmental impact categories. The primary distinction between these fabrics is the organic cotton content: DS_1 contains 60% organic cotton, while fabric S4 consists of 50% organic cotton. Furthermore, the type and proportion of recycled fibers differ; DS_1 contains 20% post-consumer recycled cotton, whereas fabric S4 contains 50% post-industrial recycled cotton. Thus, the significant difference lies in the inclusion of 20% post-consumer recycled cotton in DS_1.

Based on the analysis of Figure 4, we found that the fiber production of DS_1 has a greater impact across several environmental categories, specifically Acidification Potential (AP), Eutrophication Potential (EP), Global Warming Potential over 100 years (GWP100a), the Abiotic Depletion Potential of Elements (ADP-E), and Ozone Layer Depletion Potential (ODP). Figure 13 illustrates the contribution of fiber production to each of these impact categories. Notably, Eutrophication Potential stands out as the most significant impact category, which is primarily attributed to the land area and soil requirements for cultivation and fiber production.

The product containing a recycled component demonstrates a reduced contribution to all environmental impact categories. By excluding the Eutrophication Potential (EP) indicator—primarily associated with cotton cultivation—and focusing solely on the comparison between _DS_1 and the product S4, we derive the results illustrated in Figure 14.

Figure 14 illustrates the contributions of two fabrics, Fabric S4 and Fabric DS_1, both of which incorporate recycled cotton. Notably, Fabric DS_1 uses post-consumer recycled cotton as part of its raw material composition. When comparing the environmental impact categories of the two fabrics, it becomes evident that Fabric DS_1 does not exhibit any improvements. In fact, it shows a higher contribution to the Acidification Potential (AP) and Ozone Layer Depletion Potential (ODP) indicators. This discrepancy can be attributed to the percentage of organic cotton fiber in Fabric DS_1, which contains 60% organic cotton compared to 50% organic cotton in Fabric S4.

Incorporating recycled fiber into textile fabrics offers several environmental benefits. However, when we delve deeper into the advantages of waste recovery through material recycling and its integration into the textile production value chain, we find that the current tools for measuring the impact of this reuse are inadequate.

4.2. Physical Properties of the Product

To ensure the reliability, reproducibility, and comparability of the physical and mechanical properties of the textile samples evaluated in this study, standardized testing protocols were followed in accordance with internationally recognized ISO and EN standards. These methods enable consistent and objective assessment of key fabric performance characteristics, including mass per unit area, dimensional stability, spirality, bursting strength, and pilling resistance.

The following standards were applied:

-

EN 12127:1997–Textiles—Fabrics—Determination of Mass per Unit Area Using Small Samples [43]

This standard specifies the method for determining the fabric weight (g/m²) of woven and knitted textiles using small fabric specimens.

-

ISO 16322-2:2021–Textiles—Determination of Spirality After Laundering—Part 2: Woven and Knitted Fabrics [35]

This method assesses the spirality (twisting or skewing) of textiles following washing, providing a reliable measure of fabric distortion.

-

ISO 5077:2007/ISO 6330:2021–Textiles—Determination of Dimensional Change in Washing and Drying/Domestic Washing and Drying Procedures for Textile Testing [34,44]

ISO 5077 outlines procedures for quantifying fabric shrinkage after laundering, while ISO 6330 standardizes the washing and drying conditions used during the testing.

-

ISO 13938-2:2019–Textiles—Bursting Properties of Fabrics—Part 2: Pneumatic Method for Determination of Bursting Strength and Bursting Distension

This standard defines a pneumatic method for measuring the bursting resistance of fabrics, using a diaphragm-based testing apparatus. [45]

-

ISO 12945-1:2020–Textiles—Determination of Fabric Propensity to Surface Fuzzing and to Pilling—Part 1: Pilling Box Method [36]

This method evaluates the tendency of fabrics to form fuzz and pills through controlled tumbling in a pilling box.

For the fabric developed, DS_1, quality control tests were carried out to validate its viability. These results were later compared with the results obtained for 100% cotton jersey fabric (S1), 100% organic cotton jersey fabric (S2), 50% organic cotton, and 50% post-industrial recycled cotton jersey fabric (S4).

The factors considered for this analysis were weight, spirality, dimensional stability, burst resistance, and pilling. The results obtained are presented in

Table 6. Physical properties.

Test	Knit Structures
	S1 100% Cotton	S2 100% Organic Cotton	S4 50% Organic Cotton/50% Recycled Cotton V.360 (Post-Industrial)	DS_1
Weight [g/m2] EN 12127:1997 [44]	220	220	215	215
Spirality [%] ISO 16322-2:2021 [35]	1	1.9	2.1	1.9
Shrinkage [%] ISO 5077:2007/ISO 6330:2021 [45]	−6.5/6	−6/−5.5	−7/−6	−4/−6.5
Burst Resistance [kPa] ISO 13938-2:2019 [46]	558	552	415	496
Pilling Box ISO 12945-1:2020 [36]	4/5	4/5	4	4

.

The differences in mass per unit area (weight) among the fabrics evaluated were minimal. This finding was expected, as all the knitted samples shared the same yarn count (Ne 20/1), were produced on the same machine, and had identical processing methods. In contrast, when we analyzed dimensional stability (shrinkage) and spirality, we observed some variations. However, these variation do not indicate a significant decline in performance. Regarding the bursting resistance and pilling box tests, the fabrics containing recycled cotton exhibited lower values, including the developed fabric DS_1. There are already some studies that indicate that the properties of yarn improve as the proportion of virgin cotton fiber increases [28,47]. These results are influenced by the type of fiber and the spinning technology used to produce the yarn used in each fabric.

On average, the length of a cotton fiber is 28 mm. In contrast, mechanically recycled fibers typically range from 10 and 25 mm. Shorter fiber lengths are generally associated with poorer results in terms of breaking strength and pilling resistance. Additionally, fiber length significantly impacts yarn irregularity [31].

The spinning technology used in the production of yarn also impacts its performance. Jersey knits made from virgin cotton, as explained previously, use ring-spun technology, whereas those made from mechanically recycled cotton are produced using open-end (rotor) spinning. In ring-spun technology, fibers are twisted through a rotating ring. In open-end technology (rotor spinning), yarn production is carried out by intertwining the fibers inside a turbine called a rotor. As a final product, materials developed with open-end yarn have a drier, rougher feel and are more likely to pill [31,32,33].

Consequently, the results of the bursting resistance and pilling box tests on fabrics containing recycled cotton, when compared to those made with virgin cotton, demonstrate the viability of the developed product.

5. Research Gaps and Future Perspectives

As seen throughout this work, LCA helps to establish the quantitative assessment of environmental impact, as well as to identify ways to improve the environmental performance of products throughout their life cycle.

From this analysis, we can assume that the methods used to measure some of the environmental impact categories are not the most appropriate. The functional unit used for standardization is not efficient for the analysis of results and is not critical and transparent, for example, in terms of conventional cotton versus organic cotton. Normalizing per kg fiber, organic cotton will always present a greater contribution to some environmental impact categories, given that to produce the same amount of fiber, when compared to conventional cotton, a larger area is required. When a larger area is needed to cultivate the same quantity, this results in, for example, greater water consumption.

The used raw material in this study—fiber obtained through the mechanical recycling of textile waste—served as a substitute for virgin fiber in the production of the yarn. In this context, there is no inherent “advantage” associated with the reuse of end-of-life materials: 20% originated from cutting waste generated during garment manufacturing (post-industrial waste), while another 20% came from discarded clothing which, instead of being sent to landfill or incineration, was repurposed for fiber production. That is, the production of the recycled product made no contribution to the studied impact categories. We found a gap in recycling data (life cycle inventory). This is a topic that requires further research with the aim of defining specific requirements when it comes to materials other than those commonly analyzed in the textile industry. As a result, we will be able to carry out more rigorous impact analyses that effectively reflect the impact of raw material production on the final product.

While integrating recycled fibers offers numerous benefits, current methodologies for measuring the environmental impacts of these practices often fall short. Many existing assessment tools do not adequately capture the complexities of the recycling process and its implications for sustainability metrics. For a better understanding of the developed product and new approaches in recycling processes and materials, a more detailed examination of the properties of post-consumer materials delivered for recycling is necessary. Key considerations include [47,48] the following:

• Quality of Recycled Materials: The quality and properties of recycled fibers can vary significantly, impacting their performance and the overall quality of the final product. Important factors include the textile processing methods used on the original material, the usage cycles of garments, and the average fiber length resulting from post-consumer recycling. Current tools may not sufficiently account for these variations.
• Lifecycle Analysis Limitations: Many assessments focus narrowly on specific stages of the textile lifecycle, neglecting the broader implications of recycling throughout the entire value chain. A comprehensive lifecycle analysis (LCA) that includes end-of-life phases is crucial for understanding the true environmental benefits of recycled fibers.
• Impact of Cotton Cultivation: For fabrics that incorporate a blend of organic and recycled cotton, the environmental impacts associated with cotton cultivation, such as land use, pesticide use, and water consumption, may overshadow the benefits of using recycled materials. Existing measurement tools may not effectively integrate these factors.

6. Conclusions

The main goal of this study was to assess the environmental performance of the developed fabric using a LCA. In the case of CO₂ emissions (GWP) and water consumption, the production of recycled fiber from post-consumer textile waste shows a higher environmental impact compared to that from post-industrial waste. Given that the inputs and outputs are the same, this difference may be associated with the considerations made regarding material losses—which were equal in both situations (15%). Considering that this was one of the first products/fabrics developed with recycled fiber from post-consumer waste, it was not possible to determine the exact loss value to this specific process. Another factor is the process time, which may influence energy consumption. There is no information regarding the time required to recycle post-industrial waste and obtain the respective fiber when compared to recycling post-consumer waste and obtaining the fiber.

Regarding the physical properties obtained for the developed fabric (DS_1), when we compared this fabric with its similar ones, we were able to verify that there were no significant differences. To better characterize the developed fabric, DS_1, it is essential to conduct a more detailed study of the properties of the recycled materials used, specifically the post-industrial and post-consumer materials designated for recycling.

The results of this study are promising and suggest that the textile industry has significant potential to utilize recycling as a crucial method for reducing its environmental impact. However, this research did not provide specific measures or assessments regarding the environmental benefits of using recycled materials, underscoring the need for further investigation in this area.