Fibre-to-fibre recycling is often presented as the logical destination for post-consumer textiles, yet the supplied evidence describes a fragmented pathway set rather than a single transition. This review synthesises ten source records spanning mechanical yarn development [1], lubricant-assisted tearing [9], closed-loop wet spinning of denim [5], infrared-based automated sorting [4], mixed-waste composites [10], and broader reviews of recycling technologies, barriers and waste flows [3][7][8], together with bibliometric and socioeconomic analyses [2][6]. Three findings recur. First, sorting and pre-treatment, not spinning, appear to be the binding constraints: manual sorting is identified as a bottleneck [4], and automated near-infrared and hyperspectral approaches are framed as promising but not yet the norm [7]. Second, mechanical recycling can yield yarns fit for weaving and knitting, but the evidence is uneven across fibre types, with 100% recycled wool, polyester and silk reported as spinnable while cotton and rayon required blending with virgin fibre [1], and fibre length loss identified as a distinct mechanism that lubricant pre-treatment can mitigate [9]. Third, solvent and chemical routes can deliver higher-quality outputs but carry energy and solvent burdens [7], and the one closed-loop demonstration supplied is a single denim/cellulose case [5], not a generalisable platform. Socioeconomic and barrier evidence indicates that demand, business models and policy, rather than fibre science alone, shape adoption [6][8]. The synthesis is deliberately cautious: the sources differ in scale, method and geography, several are reviews rather than primary studies, and no supplied record reports full life-cycle or cost comparisons across pathways. Practical implications for design and manufacturing are framed as conditional design rules rather than prescriptions.
The phase-out of long-chain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has pushed water-repellent finishing toward a crowded field of fluorine-free chemistries, yet the evidence base is fragmented across chemistries, substrates and test protocols. This editorial synthesis examines ten supplied source records covering alkyl-functional silanes and sol–gel systems [5] [7] [10], amino-alkyl polysiloxane–silica hybrids [4], cationic waterborne polyurethane/acrylate latexes [8], strongly cationic fluorine-free emulsions [2], bio-based fatty-acid polymers [3] [6], and hierarchical nanostructuring by nanogravure printing or nanoparticle infiltration [1] [9]. Across these records, two mechanisms recur: lowering surface energy with long alkyl chains, and adding micro- to nanoscale roughness that shifts wetting toward the Cassie–Baxter regime [1] [4] [9]. Reported durability ranges widely, from roughly ten wash cycles for some bio-based polymers [6] to 30 soaping rounds [4], 50 washes [8] and 65 wash cycles [9], but the records use different washing protocols, substrates and evaluation criteria, so these figures are not directly comparable. Several studies report contact angles of 130–150° and spray ratings maintained after laundering [7] [8], while others emphasize abrasion and mechanical resilience [10]. Practical implications include substrate-specific formulation, attention to breathability and handle penalties, and the need for harmonized durability reporting before claims of fluorinated-performance parity can be treated as established.
Interior textiles are increasingly specified for acoustic comfort, yet the evidence base for woven and nonwoven absorbers is fragmented and partly contradictory. This critical synthesis examines ten supplied studies to clarify how fibre type, yarn structure, weave architecture, fabric density, layering, and composite processing govern sound absorption. Nonwoven evidence is comparatively consistent: needle-punched blends of natural and synthetic fibres absorb well, with thickness, areal density, air permeability, and pore size acting as recurring predictors [5][10]. Woven evidence is less settled. One study reports no significant correlation between absorption and thickness, surface density, or porosity, implying a mechanism distinct from felt-like aggregates [1], while others find that yarn type, weave, thread density, and incidence angle materially change performance [3][6][7]. Multilayer and hybrid assemblies—woven facings over nonwoven cores, microfibre resistive layers, microcapsule doping, and perforated foam–fabric combinations—can raise absorption toward unity at targeted frequencies, but outcomes depend on cavity backing, layer count, and test configuration [2][3][4][6][8]. Three-dimensional woven fabrics and their composites show fibre-dependent behaviour, with jute and flax outperforming glass and resin infusion reducing absorption [9]. The synthesis identifies porosity descriptors, airflow resistance, and membrane-type responses as candidate unifying variables, but notes that measurement methods, frequency ranges, and backing conditions differ across studies, limiting direct comparison. Practical implications centre on specifying assemblies rather than single fabrics, controlling air permeability, and validating performance under intended mounting conditions.
Bio-based coatings promise to combine flame retardancy, antimicrobial protection, and water repellency on textile surfaces while reducing reliance on hazardous chemistries. This editorial review synthesises ten supplied source records to assess what the current evidence does and does not establish. Chitosan is the most recurrent bio-based component, appearing as a phosphorylated flame-retardant phase [1], a microcapsule shell [3], a sol–gel precursor [4], a crosslinked antimicrobial matrix [5], a nanogel scaffold [6], and a water-repellent composite [8]. Reported performance is often high: >99% antibacterial efficiency against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus [1] [5], water contact angles up to 167.12° [8], and UV protection factor values of 45.1 [6] and 72.32 [3]. However, the evidence base is dominated by single-laboratory formulations tested under non-standardised conditions, with inconsistent durability protocols, limited reporting of comfort and mechanical penalties, and almost no independent replication. Durability claims range from retention after 15–20 washes [1] [6] [8] to loss of superhydrophobicity after laundering [1]. The review argues that the field's central unresolved problem is not the discovery of multifunctional bio-based chemistries but the demonstration of reproducible, scalable, and comfort-preserving performance. Practical implications for applied textile design and manufacturing are framed as testable trade-offs rather than settled conclusions.
Digital textile printing is frequently presented as a resource-efficient alternative to screen printing, but the evidence base for that claim is fragmented across ink chemistry, substrate pre-treatment, surface modification and value-chain studies. This editorial synthesis examines ten supplied sources to distinguish demonstrated resource effects from inferred ones. Water-based bio-based pigment inks show good light and weathering fastness and satisfactory wash and rub resistance, with biopolymer pre-treatment improving fixation on cotton and synthetic binder improving wash fastness on polyester [1]. Plasma pre-treatment of cotton and lyocell improves pigment coverage, distribution uniformity and some wash fastness [8], while yarn type and pre-treatment alter shade, colourfulness, colour strength and crockfastness on PET [3]. Laser engraving of cotton velvet before inkjet printing measurably changes colour outcomes through pile-height variation [2] [7]. Eco-friendly formaldehyde-free finishes improve performance of digitally printed cotton [5]. At value-chain level, brand-owner collaboration is proposed to accelerate the shift from screen to digital printing [6], and national readiness assessments highlight investment uncertainty and skills requirements [4] [10]. Bibliometric mapping shows fluctuating research attention and positions digital printing as both opportunity and threat to batik preservation [9]. Across sources, resource-efficiency claims are stronger for chemistry and pre-treatment than for quantified water, energy or waste reduction. Evidence is largely laboratory-scale, geographically concentrated and methodologically heterogeneous, limiting generalisable manufacturing conclusions.
Antimicrobial textile finishes are increasingly proposed for healthcare, sportswear and hygiene applications, yet the evidence base is fragmented across chemistries, test methods and durability claims. This critical synthesis examines 10 supplied sources covering synthetic agents such as polybiguanide [1] and N-halamine [7], inorganic and metal-organic systems including sol–gel coatings [4] and HKUST-1 [3], and bio-based options such as chitosan nanoparticles [2], essential oils [5] [6], propolis and honey [8], and green-synthesised silver nanoparticles [9]. Reported antibacterial efficacy is often high, but durability varies widely: PHMB retained 100% bactericidal effect after 52 washes [1], N-halamine-treated PET maintained 80% efficacy after 50 washes [7], and silver–fibroin viscose reached 99.99% after 30 washes [9], whereas chitosan finishes showed activity after only 10 washes [2] [8]. Safety is largely inferred rather than demonstrated; no source reports systematic human skin or environmental toxicity data. The review identifies methodological heterogeneity, limited reporting of hand feel and strength trade-offs, and a gap between laboratory washing simulations and real-use conditions. Practical implications include the need for standardised durability testing, explicit reporting of mechanical and comfort penalties, and cautious communication of safety claims.
Recycled polyester (rPET) is central to textile circularity, yet its performance is often assumed rather than demonstrated. This editorial review synthesises ten supplied studies spanning flame-retardant finishing [1], graphene-blended yarns [2], natural-fibre composites [3], mechanically recycled nonwovens [4], fibre-to-fibre recycling strategies [5], ageing behaviour [6], and comparative fabric testing [7] [9] [10]. The evidence indicates that rPET can match or exceed conventional polyester in tensile strength, abrasion resistance and moisture transport [7] [9], and that calendering can reduce water vapour resistance by up to 23% while eliminating visible sweat marks [10]. However, ageing studies show conventional polyester retains better abrasion resistance, surface smoothness and elastic recovery [6], and mechanical recycling introduces fibre-length and processability penalties [4]. Disagreements between sources are explained by differences in fibre origin, blend composition, test method and whether performance is measured before or after laundering or ageing. Practical implications include low additive loadings for durable finishing [1], internal rather than surface functionalisation [2], and blend-ratio optimisation for nonwovens [4]. Circularity claims require fibre-level evidence, not waste-diversion metrics alone [5].
Domestic laundering of synthetic textiles is a recognised pathway for microfibre release into aquatic environments [1][2][4]. This editorial review synthesises findings from ten supplied studies to examine the mechanisms, measurement approaches and mitigation strategies associated with microfibre shedding. Evidence indicates that release is influenced by washing parameters such as time, temperature and detergent use [2], by fibre type and textile construction [5][7], and by finishing treatments [6][9]. Filtration technologies show variable but promising retention efficiencies, ranging from 26% for a laundry ball to over 90% for inline filters under specific conditions [1][3]. However, methodological heterogeneity across studies—including differences in fabric preparation, washing conditions and quantification techniques—limits direct comparison and generalisability [4][8]. Disagreements persist regarding the relative shedding of recycled versus virgin synthetics [7] and the contribution of non-fabric components such as sewing threads [5]. Practical implications for textile design and manufacturing include selecting fibre types and thread constructions that minimise fragmentation, applying surface treatments that reduce fibre loss, and integrating filtration systems at the appliance level. Standardisation of test methods and reporting metrics is essential for robust comparative assessment and for informing evidence-based design decisions.
Textile research creates the greatest practical value when material structure, testing, manufacturing conditions and end use are considered together. This founding editorial sets out the scope and working principles of the Journal of Applied Textiles.