Introduction

The field of biomaterials encompasses various approaches and perspectives in science. Initially, these materials were developed with the aim of obtaining biocompatibility properties to replace or support human organs, bone tissues and other medical applications (Pellicer et al. 2017; Tranquilli Leali and Merolli 2009). Nowadays, biomaterials are increasingly being recognised as a promising vector for health research and development activities. However, the term “biomaterials” is ambiguous, and its meaning depends on the context in which it is used. For example, in the design and textile sector, it is used to refer to accessories, footwear, apparel and furniture, as well as other alternatives made from wool, down, leather, coating and finishing products (Material Innovation Initiative 2022a). Additionally, biomaterials can also be biosynthetic products, which are synthetic polymeric materials composed, in whole or in part, of bio-based materials produced through biotechnology, and considered as substitutes for conventional materials (Biofabricate 2020; Pellicer et al. 2017). Each case should be considered as an achievement in understanding the diverse production processes, which vary depending on the specificity of the biomaterial. The wide range of biomaterials available is a result of various sources of raw materials and production methods that offer distinct properties (Bikramjit et al. 2009; Dahiya et al. 2020; Europe 2019; Pellicer et al. 2017). Initially, these materials are often limited to science labs where experience is gained through interaction and manipulation to facilitate their rapid prototyping in organisations such as GreenLabs, FabLabs, Hackerspaces or BioLabs (Forman et al. 2022). The constant demand for this new version of materiality has the power to shape and transform even the simplest applications, causing significant impacts on the world (Fernandez and Dritsas 2020). In the literature review, numerous studies in Materials Science emphasise the crucial importance of developing sustainable and ecological materials which stems from society’s concerns about environmental protection in light of the use of fossil fuel-based materials, energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and overpopulation (Savio et al. 2022; Das et al. 2021). It is estimated that by 2030, 70% of these materials will still be used in industries such as fashion, automotive and home goods (Changing Markets Foundation 2021). The urgent need to replace synthetic fibres arises from their detrimental impact on terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems through the release of microplastics (Material Innovation Initiative 2022b). PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate) accounts for about 85% of the fibres produced worldwide (Textile Exchange 2022a). This material, despite the disadvantages presented, also brings beneficial properties for durable products (Polymerdatabase 2015). Compared to biomaterials, these synthetic and man-made materials allow a number of parameters to be defined in relation to their life cycle in order to make a more effective selection. Therefore, the use of biomaterials presents an opportunity to mitigate these negative impacts while addressing climate change and global warming (van den Oever et al. 2017). However, it is essential to handle this vision with caution and manage biomaterials sustainably, as they may not always have a low environmental impact (Europe 2019).

The data collected in this study highlights that the perception of biomaterials can vary, ranging from ambiguous and general to well-understood. Consequently, some studies serve as valuable instruments that support the theoretical framework of biomateriality, characterised by their relevant properties and features for this work (Blackburn 2005; Collet 2018; Rana et al. 2014b; Shen et al. 2010). However, in product development, it is crucial to identify the fundamental properties and influencing conditions that dictate material performance. For instance, differentiating between materials that are bio-based but not biodegradable versus those that are both bio-based and biodegradable. Bio-based and biodegradable are different terms in the context of biomaterials. Bio-based refers to the biological origin of the material and has nothing to do with whether the material is biodegradable. And biodegradable refers to the specific property of the material to be biodegradable (van den Oever et al. 2017; Egan and Salmon 2021). According to the biosynthetic report (Textile Exchange 2022b), biodegradation is a circular property in which the material is compounded with a chemical structure that allows it to be degraded by microorganisms into carbon dioxide and biomass. The conditions under which the material biodegrades can vary depending on the material being worked with. Even if the material is biodegraded, it does not mean that this happens in a short time, or that it does not require favourable industrial processes. According to European Bioplastics (2023), biodegradation can be done by composting or anaerobic digestion. Composting takes place under aerobic conditions found in industrial and domestic environments, depending on the material. Purely natural environments are usually required for composting to take place without human intervention (Egan and Salmon 2021). However, when investigating the end-of-life of these materials according to the life cycle of a product, which is described in “Materials and Methods section, it usually takes place in landfills. Therefore, industrial composting is most used, with the process controlled by specific temperature, humidity and aeration conditions. PLA, for example, requires 98% humidity and 60° temperature to decompose and become a nutrient to produce new raw materials (Rana et al. 2014a). It is therefore a biodegradable material under industrial conditions.

Thus, the aim of this study is to provide a concise bibliographic review of the textile biomaterials available in the market establishing a framework of scenarios that assists designers to consider these materials supported by the tenets of sustainability design (nature as a model, biomimicry, Industrial Ecology, Cradle-to-Cradle (circular economy (CE) and bioeconomy and Biodesign) described on a theoretical framework. These principles serve as guidelines for better product design practices, regarding the use of sustainable materials and raises the question of what design skills or practices designers need to acquire to effectively incorporate or select textile biomaterials in their projects.

On the road to sustainability, research into these materials allows us to preserve the value of resources and products for as long as possible and minimise waste generations, contributing to a more sustainable, efficient and competitive economy (Wiedemann et al. 2022; Ec 2015). Circularity in textiles involves reducing the use of virgin raw materials and the associated end-of-life impacts that result in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to improper disposal of garments in incinerators and landfills and intensive use of water throughout the value chain (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2017a). However, many of these materials can be recovered in downcycling systems through cascading use, where they can be stored or recycled for a period of time depending on their application (Faud-Luke 2004). Nevertheless, it is necessary to understand the stages of life cycle and the impacts that occur throughout the material value chain. To this end, when it comes to understanding materials, it is necessary to consider aspects such as energy, which could have an impact on global warming and human health; the different raw materials, which could have an impact on land use, water consumption and ecosystems; and the different processes related to the development of the final product, which could have an impact on all the previous categories (Qin 2021). The European Union identifies as a priority for textiles from 2019 the decoupling and reduction of the climate footprint through solutions called “bio-based” (i.e. products where part or all of the mass of the product comes from non-fossil raw materials such as agricultural crops). Therefore, understanding the raw materials is one of the basic mechanisms for understanding the life cycle assessment (LCA), and subsequently identifying the associated properties, which are mainly related biodegradation in biomaterials. Furthermore, the relationship with the selection of material (SM) is a fundamental step in the design-driven product (DDP) process, emphasising the circular framework and principles of dematerialisation (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2017a; EMF 2015; Tan and Lamers 2021).

This work is organised into several parts, as shown in Fig. 1. The theoretical framework enables us to integrate information related to various situations, including questions, specific points and thought processes that are essential to comprehending the materiality at hand and guiding the designer in making thoughtful and informed selections. These connections facilitate drawing conclusions and identifying potential future contributions resulting from the conducted work.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Overview of the research process in this study

Full size image

Theoretical Framework

Design for Sustainability

Designing for Sustainability is an educational approach rooted in nature-based beliefs that serve as a source of inspiration for solving human problems (Ceschin and Gaziulusoy 2016). The first principle states that biomimetics is a learning process based on acquiring knowledge from nature. Janine Benyus (Benyus and J. 1997, pag.11), a pioneering author in this field, mentioned that “in a biomimetic world, we would manufacture the way animals and plants do, using sun and simple compounds to produce totally biodegradable fibres, ceramics, plastics and chemicals”. This approach involves observing and emulating the functions of living beings such as plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, yeasts and others to replicate the processes of design nature. Stefano Mancuso (2020), a neurobiologist, points out that imitating nature allows humans to build an organised and evolutionary path. The author also explains that the plants in the forests and woods form interconnected root systems that create a community, where species share knowledge to evolve culturally throughout the system. Thus, sharing becomes a fundamental aspect in relation to biological evolution and plant survival. This ideology of openly shared knowledge, interdependent and commonality is described by Dyson (Dyson 2007, pag.3) as “a community of cells of various kinds, sharing their genetic information so that clever chemical tricks and catalytic processes invented by one creature could be inhered by all of them”. Nature negotiates its multiple functions to survive by effectively managing and promoting essential properties that humanity replicates in materials, such as strength, stiffness, toughness and impact resistance (Oxman 2010). Digital fabrication and the biotechnology are two possible technological approaches that enable the imitation and embodiment of natural materials as a gear for bioeconomy. Through collaborative practices, it is possible to merge the fields of design and craft with Science Materials, Genetic Engineering, Biology, and Computer Science, and others, creating informed relationships between products, systems and their environments (Forman et al. 2022; Myers 2012). The culture of design is witnessing the emergence of a new paradigm of materiality (Oxman 2008). Nature has generated, created and regenerated physical strength, the photosynthesis, and the biodegradation processes to provide essential nutrients for the well-being of the planet. The challenges of energy crises, pollution, biodiversity loss and ecological degradation have spurred environmental movements and interest in developing systems that align with the logic and principles of nature, such as industrial ecology (Ceschin and Gaziulusoy 2016). This concept, related to the circular economy, is a framework for thinking about and organising production and consumption systems in a way that resembles the natural ecosystem (Gallaud and Laperche 2016; Pauliuk and Hertwich 2016). This conviction is particularly evident in promoting a rich biological system that enables sustainable solutions for both human society and the natural world shifting from a linear path to a circular cycle in a sustainable economy (Tan and Lamers 2021). Nowadays, resources are no longer unlimited, as they were believed to be in the era of the first industrial revolution. In contrast, we have an ecosystem with limited resources that needs to be managed in an industrial ecology system to promote the cyclical and efficient flow of materials (Fet and Deshpande 2023). Thus, in conjunction with other concepts such as the CE, it is possible to connect two material cycles: the biological materials that ensure the positive flow of materials into and out of the biosphere, becoming nutrients for nature; and the technical materials that can be kept in circulation through reuse, remanufacturing, maintenance and recycling processes (EMF 2015). Finally, the principles of the bioeconomy or economic biocycle (EMF - Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2017) encompass a range of industries dealing with biological materials at different stages of the supply chain, which can be used as valuable resources. The last principle seeks to incorporate nature in all its processes. Humans should not only imitate, but also integrate the mechanisms into product development. The explicit concept in this context is Biodesign, created by William Myers (2012) and upgraded by Carole Collet (2018) which aims to adopt the formula of how nature has evolved to achieve better ecological performance of products, systems and their environment. In this way, the principles mentioned are not only used as separate, distinct, ideologies, but also simultaneously with the others to create a system that makes it possible to share information and evaluate efficiency according to the values of nature show in Fig. 2. These principles draw inspiration from nature as a source for the learning process, centred around acquiring several concepts that can serve as learning models for materials’ educations. This approach supports the development of circular and sustainable products. The second part of the theoretical framework focuses on the topic of SM and explores processes for translating the knowledge gained from this study into practical materials applications.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Set of principles associated with Design for Sustainability and crucial for understanding/relating interdisciplinary practices associates with design, using the various concepts based on the model of Nature. Font image: a, Velcro Inspired by Burr Needle (2021); b, IIT Madras (2020); c, Narawit (2023); d, Bricks Magazine (2021); e, Insidedenim n.d.

Full size image

The Selection of Materials: Interdisciplinary Crossroads

The SM is a field that originates from Materials Science and Engineering and is associated with domain-specific knowledge transfer in design, in the field of materials (Piselli 2015). It is supported by models and theories and consists of a set of tools that support the decision-making process in the selection of materials (Rahim et al. 2020). According to Karana (2009), SM is a part of the design process that enables the determination of the appropriate material or materials for the product being developed. Initially, the focus was only on the technical and functional requirements for the performance of the product, which related to service life, exposure conditions and application (Pfeiter 2009). Later, it became important to consider materials not only as technical elements, but also through a series of variables related to aesthetics, emotional and sensory properties, which are directly related to people’s socio cultural values (Elvin Karana and Owian Pedgley 2015; Manzini 1989; Michel et al. 2009). Currently, and with greater influence on designers’ decision-making, SM is directing its ways towards sustainability, circularity and eco-design criteria (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2017b; Faud-Luke 2004; Markevičiūtė and Varžinskas 2022), which allow for a greater valorisation of resources in a more sustainable and circular economy (Dokter et al. 2022). These are the fundamental criteria and domains for the SM, which together with the different instruments (i.e. models or tools) allow us to develop a better understanding of materials (Asbjørn Sorensen et al. 2016). Learning is mostly theoretical and technical, where a more practical and experimental approach to materials in design is necessary (Collina 2011; Zhou et al. 2018). The use of these SM tools thus facilitates the designer’s selection of materials through the interaction of a number of the criteria described above.

In this way, a few directions such as interaction/influence diagrams of material properties were carried out during the study as supports for the discussion of the understanding of materiality. The bibliographical study of materials conducted for this work aims the understanding of a specific field of textile biomaterials, from a designer’s perspective. Their general knowledge aims to identify the origin of the raw material extracted or used which does not appear in the final product. It is processed and transformed and contains a series of situations that influence and condition its knowledge as a material used for a product.

Fibres: Influence of the Properties

By studying fibres in general, one can be understand that their properties vary according to their dimensional appearance, length, diameter, growing conditions, age, type of leaf and the different methods of extracting the fibres (Gardetti and Muthu 2016). In this way, there are a few differentiated parameters that vary depending on the material. Furthermore, these fibres can be incorporated into polyester resins to produce yarn, or used as they are to be spun and processed into yarns for woven or non-woven fabrics in spinning systems (i.e. the conversion process also varies) (Blackburn 2005). Finally, a set of properties can be derived from different characteristics that may influence their use. Table 1 shows the factors influencing biodegradation-related properties. Each of these parameters relates specifically to the criteria of SM, from production and processing (i.e. manufacturing processes) to functionality and aesthetic requirements, to issues of sustainability and circularity of the materials themselves through different types of properties.

Table 1 Factors influencing biodegradation-related properties
Full size table

In this way, and by analysing the comparison of some fibres linking the information at hand, we obtain a study of the interaction or influence of the different properties. For example, the fibre from coconut is less flexible than a cotton fibre because the lignin content is higher (Gardetti and Muthu 2016). Another example is abaca leaf fibre, it has a good resistance due to its excellent yield point, it is more flexible than coir fibre because it has a lower stiffness and for this reason requires needs less energy (Kozolowski et al. 2005 ; Gardetti and Muthu 2016).

In terms of biodegradability, a property associated with biomaterials, it can be presumed that this property is only achieved by some fibres that have, for example, a high degree of crystallinity (i.e. no amorphous regions and a low lignin content) (Kozolowski et al. 2005) In addition, fibres that have a low density may be susceptible to biodegradation, which affects their chemical resistance. Pineapple leaf fibre, for instance, has high density and chemical resistance, making it resistant to biodegradation (Mwaikambo 2006). On the other hand, the abaca leaf fibre has low density but high chemical resistance. However, it contains a high cellulose content, which makes the fibre easy to process, giving it a high degree of crystallinity and turning it biodegradable (Subagyo and Chafidz 2018). These relationships/interactions inherent in materials are part of a decision-making process and, once reviewed, part of specific knowledge. However, if cross-referenced to a SM process, the scattered information can be consolidated, allowing for material identification based on biodegradation associated with positive cycling pathways.

Materials and Methods

This study is based on qualitative methodology supported by theoretical content from reports and scientific articles in the fields of design, materials engineering and science that address the framework of biomaterials for textile applications.

Bibliographic Survey on Sustainability Materials

A bibliographic survey on sustainability and future materials (Fig. 3) was conducted to provide information for future considerations on this topic. Three groups of materials have been identified: (1) biopolymers belonging to the polyester group or biosynthetic fibres (such as bio-PET and PLA, as shown in Table 2) produced from biological resources, which are considered potential substitutes for synthetic fibres (Shen et al. 2010); (2) some natural fibres that are currently available on the market and used in numerous textile applications (such as pineapple and abaca leaves, as shown in Table 3); and (3) alternative and sustainable next-gen materials (such as Piñatex, Dinamica, Grape Leather and Biosteel Fiber, as shown in Table 4) derived from a wide range of biomass resources (such as plants, microbes, recycled materials and other sustainable alternatives being developed based on biomimicry approaches) (Material Innovation Initiative 2022b). This overview together with the theoretical framework provides information for future considerations.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Sustainability and future materials. Font image: biopolymers (Lurdes Sampaio Malhas 2018) ; natural fibres (Frias 2019); next generation of materials (Bolt Threads 2020)

Full size image
Table 2 Biopolymers – textile polyester. Image font: Bio-PET (hej support, n.d.; Toray 2013). Image font: PLA (Fibre2Fashion, 2019; Renewable Carbon News, 2019). Image font: PHA (MangoMaterials, 2020)
Full size table
Table 3 Natural fibres from plant leaf
Full size table
Table 4 Sustainable future textile materials. Image font: Piñatex (Ananas Anam, n.d.-a). Image font: Dinamica: (Maxcom, n.d.). Image font: Grape Leather (Nicholoson, 2021). Image font: Biosteel Fibre (Heater, 2016)
Full size table

Biopolymers: Polyester Group or Biosynthetic Fibres

The biopolymers presented belong to the polyester group (Table 2) and can replace synthetic fibres such as PET, polyamides and nylon (Shen et al. 2010).

In this way, bio-PET is considered a thermoplastic bio-derived polymer as it is partially bio-based (between 20 and 30%) consisting of fossil monomers called “drop-in” (Lamberti et al. 2020). It is a material with similar properties to PET fibres and can be processed with the same equipment and under the same technical conditions. It can also be recycled using the same recycling process as polyester. However, bio-PET is 30% more expensive than PET (Carus et al. 2014).

PLA is a thermoplastic “novel” biomaterial, semi-crystalline that is 100% compostable and comes from renewable crops (Farrington et al. 2005). It is made from first-generation raw materials, sugar cane, sugar beet and starch from potatoes, corn and wheat, which are considered by-products of the food waste industry (Wellenreuther and Wolf 2020). According to Dugan and J. (2001), PLA can be converted into yarn for textiles through a spinning process and can be produced at low financial and environmental cost. It is considered an eco-friendly material that is also recyclable, compostable and biocompatible, i.e. non-toxic. It is also a material that can replace PET fibres due to its similar properties (Farrington et al. 2005).

Moreover, the bio-PET and PLA under study are also considered biosynthetic fibres derived not only from biological raw materials such as agriculture, forestry and even waste food, but also from biotechnological raw materials such as algae, fungi, enzymes and bacteria. Future alternatives for the production of PLA without dependence on food crops are the use of cellulosic raw materials such as bagasse, straw, wood and biomass (The Textile Magazine 2023). In relation to bio-PET, this can be fully renewable, but the technology needs to be developed so that this material compares favourably with fossil-based PET (Volanti et al. 2019). This is because the use of renewable resources for the production of fabrics does not mean that they also bring environmental benefits (García-Velásquez and van der Meer 2022).

Finally, Poly(hydraxualkanoates) (PHA) is a thermoplastic semi-crystalline biopolymer that can be artificially generated or produced by nature (Wellenreuther and Wolf 2020). Due to the energy- and material-intensive fermentation and processing required to produce the polymer, its production costs are comparatively high to PLA, but competitive with fossil-based plastic polymers (Pieja et al. 2016). The copolymers related to this polymer are present in the production of textile fibres, so they can be used to produce biodegradable single-use fabrics, woven and non-woven fabrics (Polymerdatabase n.d.). According to Fashion For Good (2021), the potential applications for textiles are still limited, but the fact that this material is made exclusively from renewable sources offers excellent opportunities. It could be a bio-based polymer solution that is compostable in marine and terrestrial environments. It could also replace PET fibres and is considered a neutral material. Additionally, it is known that Mango Materials, a company based in CA, USA, produces a type of PHA from waste biogas (methane) through a microbial process (Textile Exchange 2022a). This valuable polymer can be processed into eco-friendly plastic products such as children’s toys, electronic casings, non-wovens and packaging applications (Pieja et al. 2016)

Natural Fibres

In Table 3, two of the numerous natural fibres available on the market are shown, and their selection was based to orienting the work and establishing connections between subjects. The aim is to understand that some specific materials presented here are blended, for example, Pinatex® in Table 4, which is a material derived from pineapple leaf fibre, blended with PLA (see Table 2). This allows for obtaining relevant considerations in the Results and Discussion section.

The peculiarity of using abaca fibres is that they are obtained from forests and agricultural waste, which can serve as fertilisers for soil, reducing erosion and sedimentation issues. From an eco-design perspective, abaca fibres are considered recyclable, biodegradable and cost-effective due to being made from freely available raw materials (Subagyo and Chafidz 2018). However, their properties present lower density, higher mechanical strength, moisture absorption and elasticity. They also exhibit low surface glossiness and acquire a white colour due to their lower cellulose content. These properties differ depending on the fibre extraction and manufacturing process (Saxena and Chawla 2021).

Pineapple leaf fibres are also considered as waste and by-products from agricultural industries (Abdul et al. 2021). These fibres possess properties such as high density, excellent mechanical properties (e.g. tensile strength, stiffness, elongation at break), good thermal stability and high cellulose content. Due to the latter aspect, the fibres have a glossy and smooth surface with a beige-white creamy colour (Gardetti and Muthu 2016).

Next-Generation Materials

Table 4 presents a selection of four materials that represent sustainable alternatives available in the market, for creating positive impact on the environment by creating gears for a circular and bioeconomy (Material Innovation Initiative 2022a). These materials demonstrate the variety of biomass and resources that can be utilised for developing sustainable alternatives for various applications.

Pinatex® is a biogenic non-woven textile composed of pineapple leaf fibres blended with polylactic acid (PLA) derived from corn sugar, obtained from the first generation of biomass (Meyer et al. 2021). The material has a soft, down-like texture and can be dyed using GOTS-certified dyes to achieve various colours suitable for textile applications such as clothing, footwear, accessories and furniture (Anam n.d.-b). However, the bulk leather made from Pinatex® consists of a multi-layered material that utilises fossil-based raw materials as a thin polymer top layer, providing excellent mechanical stability but resulting in a hard surface that may resemble synthetic materials or leather (Meyer et al. 2021).

Dinamica® is fossil-based material and is considered a sustainable and alternative option to animal-based leather. The use of raw materials such as recycled polyester and microfibres demonstrates their potential in upcycling, contributing to the three pillars of sustainability (Miko n.d.). The waste is a valuable raw material in terms of the three pillars of sustainability. Further analysis of other materials with the same with similar characteristics is presented in the results and discussion section.

The material Grape Leather by Vegea® Italy is based on agricultural by-products, such as peels, bast and seeds from the wine processing (Vegea Company n.d.). It is a typical composition of PUR-coated artificial leather used in footwear, upholstery (furniture or car seats) and other applications. Although it is initially produced from cellulose, fossil-based raw materials are used in the final process to make it suitable as a material (Meyer et al. 2021).

Lastly, the Biosteel Fiber developed by AMSilk Fiber in 2015, is a “bionic composite material, that is strong, elastic and lightweight, resistant, non-immunogenic, non-inflammatory, non-toxic, biocompatible and extremely skin-friendly, vegan, 100% biodegradable and with perfect moisture management and odour control”(D’Olivo and Karana 2021). Based on Bioengineering and Synthetic Biology, this silk fibre is produced through biotechnology and “comes from two broad categories: bottom-up material design and top-down material design” (Gladman 2021). Both forms of material design are based on biomimicry (i.e. they mimic the function of the material). AMSilk Fiber, Spiber (Brewed Protein) and Boltt Threats Microsilk are bottom-up approaches i.e. they are technologies that replicate the silk protein via cellular engineering approaches. On the other hand, a top-down materials approach is about finding naturally occurring synthetic materials that closely mimic the performance of silk fibre (such as Orange Fiber and SmartFiber AG: SeaCell and SmartCell) (Gladman 2021). In relation to AMSilk, this silky biopolymer is also soft and smooth and used in sports footwear, clothing, aerospace, automotive and textiles due to its durability, comfort and flexibility (AMSilk n.d.).

Life Cycle Assessment of Biomaterials

Life cycle assessment (LCA) (Fig. 4) is a method that takes into account the environmental impact of a product or service at different stages from cradle-to-grave vision (e.g. extraction of raw materials, production, transport, use and end of life) (European Environment Agency 2017). Although it is a useful tool for understanding environmental issues, it only focuses on the detailed of life cycle aspects and considers general data of materials that can be obtained through a specific supply chain (Textile Exchange 2022b). Biofabricate (2020) points out that LCA is a general methodology implemented by the European Union (EU) and that the “output” of the analysis depends on both the needs of end-users and the maturity of the innovation process associated with 4 key hotspots: feedstock, chemistry, end-of-use and social impact. Furthermore, this analysis can become too complex, as since certain companies do not want to share the data obtained for the development of the material. In some cases, it is a matter of giving a key indicator of sustainability, often linked to certifications that allow commercialised of these materials. Therefore, for this study, some data has been included in Table 5, as it is important to understand the LCA when investigating biomaterials, especially textiles to support some of the findings mentioned in the results.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Life cycle assessment of (bio)materials and circularity. Font: adapted from Fig. 2 (Ali et al. 2023)

Full size image
Table 5 Life cycle assessment of biomaterials
Full size table

Implications of Data Collection

This series of tables allows for a structured synthetic organisation of the collected information and creates a database from the designer’s perspective, aiming to understand the origin of the materials (i.e. where they come from) as well as their “influencing properties” in relation to their performance (such as functionalism and ecology). This will enable a better understanding of the product life cycle, which will impact potential designer decisions in making a thoughtful and informed choices.

With the support of the principles of Design for Sustainability considered in “Design for Sustainability” section, this data is considered important to understand the dynamics that exist between knowledge of biomaterials and the drive for their selection through the selection of materials field presented in the background of the study. Through these elements, one not only gains an insight into the vast and significant panorama of textile materiality but can also make fundamental considerations for a rethink of the materials that exist and that the designer can use in his products.

The considerations in the Discussion and Results section are defined by the application and linking of brainstorming and triangulation methods to compare the data with the theoretical information (Ideas et al. 2012). This allows for drawing conclusions and making future contributions to the knowledge of textile biomaterials in design, particularly in the selection of materials where the designer plays an active role.

Results and Discussion

The study of biomaterials posed a complex challenge due to the multitude of materials available in the market, making their selection for this research difficult. As a result, only a limited number of materials are presented here, enabling us to draw our own conclusions and gain a better understanding of the utilisation of biomaterials in textile projects for sustainable and circular design.

To begin with, the investigation focused on textile biopolymers belonging to the polyester group, such as Bio-PET, PLA and PHA as outlined in Table 2. These materials can be derived from various sources of available feedstocks (i.e. raw materials) from different sources (Europe 2019; Pellicer et al. 2017). However, it should be noted that the environmental impact of 100% bio-based product may not always be positive and could have negative consequences (Lamberti et al. 2020). For instance, Chen et al. (2016) reported that a Bio-PET bottle with TA (terephthalic acid) derived from forest residues may have a carbon footprint equivalent to that of a PET bottle with TA from fossil-based sources. This implies that materials sourced from renewable feedstocks could have a higher environmental footprint. Moreover, despite containing some biological content, many biomaterials are non-biodegradable, such as Bio-PET, which has approximately 20–30% biological content but is not biodegradable, and also contains components of fossil origin in its polymeric structure (Storz and Vorlop 2013). The production process of these materials often involves a mixture of different feedstocks and can be illustrated through several synthesis routes, such as polymerisation and fermentation, which are widely employed in the chemical and biochemical modifications (Hannover 2021; Storz and Vorlop 2013). Moreover, bio-PET is more expensive than PET from fossil raw materials (Carus et al. 2014). Therefore, the use of synthetic materials such as PET remains a quality/price solution. However, there is a need to implement strategies to reduce their impact. From the polymer database consulted for the study (Polymerdatabase 2015), we know that the properties of bio-PET fibres are similar to those of PET fibres and that they can be processed with the same equipment and under the same technical conditions and recycled with the same recycling stream. However, the emissions associated with this downstream process are similar to PET-fossil based. For this reason, the production of these bio-based fibres decreases from 9.8% in 2019 to 7.8% in 2020, losing their value in the market (Ali et al. 2023; Ibrahim et al. 2021). Biopolymers are not automatically environmentally friendly. Their environmental impact depends on many factors, which can be analysed using the various elements of LCA (Ali et al. 2023).

For example, when studying PLA, it is assumed that this material can be efficiently processed in terms of biomass use and conversion in addition to being biodegradable, compostable and recyclable. However, it is necessary to analyse these properties in different situations to determine their optimal impact on the final product. From the LCA described above, it is evident that durability is an important feature in terms of sustainability. By understanding the life cycle of the material in the use phase, durable and strong materials allow applications not to be easily replaced and remain in use longer. Therefore when using PLA, the designer should consider both the physical durability of the product (e.g. resistance to degradation over time) and with the physical durability of the material (e.g. resistance to degradation) (Bakker et al. 2019). These considerations allow for critical and effective thinking in the choice of material, taking into account the life cycle of the material until the completion of the proposed project. This theoretical and technical knowledge of material is essential for their understanding. In this way, is fundamental for the designer to address these issues in the DDP and to establish a closer relationship with the field of Environmental Science and Engineering Materials.

The principles of dematerialisation are linked to the concept of industrial ecology and the phenomena of recycling and reuse, which enable the reduction of material waste and the durability of the product. However, these are not endless processes, but rather the facilitation of the entry of already existing materials into the economy, reduce waste and consider them as alternative and sustainable materials for various textile applications. According to the Brand Engagement with Next-Gen Materials 2022 Landscape Report (Material Innovation Initiative 2022a), brands such as Dinamica, Plumtech, Recycled Plumtech, Primoloft Bio, Ecodown and Ecosimple Fabric are using Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) post-consume resources, bottle PET’s and microfibres are alternative replacements to animal-based downs and wools. These materials, referred to as fossil-based, can be recovered by their introduction into the CE, creating the flow of materials through the technical cycle. Designers must ensure that materials are compatible with recycling processes or that they can be manually or mechanically separated during disassembly. The conversion of materials can result in a loss of function and value and should be considered as a last option when products are no longer useful, creating a closed loop in CE (Bakker et al. 2019). Therefore, it is essential to know how to use these resources to avoid damaging natural systems and endangering future generations (UNESCO and Sustainable Development Goals 2021).

At this point, there are several criteria associated with the SM field that allows for relationships to be established, to make more thoughtful and effective decisions through the acquisition of knowledge about materials. Furthermore, the Cradle-to-Cradle concept, associated with the designing for sustainability, is to follow nature model through circular visions, and to restore and regenerate through design (McDonough and Braungart 2002; Vezzoli and Manzini 2008; Ali et al. 2023). In this way, the value of products must be maintained for long as possible by employing “slowdown” strategies, such as reuse and replenishment of products and services, to retain their value. Additionally, the product must be safety managed by through organised loops that involve controlling waste activity, recovering products and materials for further processing in a double cycle (technical and biological or both); separating and sorting different materials for recycling and recycling in terms of quality, reliability and competitive material cost (Haffmans et al. 2018). These actions optimise the flow of materials, reducing their impact on the environment, while employing circular design strategies such as rethink, reduce, and renew, as well as ecological footprint indicators related to energy and transportation, to produce and purchase locally or regionally, which presents an excellent opportunity (Faud-Luke 2004).

Therefore, it is crucial for the design process that the designer inquire about materiality and its implication in the DDP. If the project is centred on sustainable development, one of the key questions to ask is as follows: to what extent will the product being designed to minimise its impact on the environment? This can be achieved through the choice of materials, such as those with enhanced biodegradability property, or those made of drop-in monomers (such as bio-PET). Both aspects are relevant to CE and carry significant environmental weight. Thus, acquiring knowledge of biomaterials is essential to understand these differences. Firstly, in this case, biodegradability is the property that can be influenced by other factors, resulting in a positive or negative secondary property, or even influenced by external conditions and manufacturing processes. Second, in the case of the materials made of drop-in monomers, the properties that affect biodegradability remain excellent, as they consist of 70–80% fossil raw materials.

As mentioned in “Fibre Study: Influence of Properties” section, it is possible to understand a series of influences that exist between the biodegradation resulting from the interaction with other properties that allow us to determine whether or not this fibre is biodegradable. This particularity can be considered as a primary property, i.e. a characteristic of the material that allows us to understand the end stage of its life. For example, as shown in Fig. 5, biodegradability can be influenced by the moderate thermal stability of the fibre (abaca), which loses weight when exposed to heat, making it flexible and giving it a low density, which is why it is considered biodegradable (Kozolowski et al. 2005; Subagyo and Chafidz 2018). This exercise can be employed to understand the dynamics that influence the material properties and identify the one that best aligns with the intended design project.

Fig. 5
figure 5

The influence or interaction of properties between properties. In this case is specific to abaca leaf fibre. Image font: (Abaca Leaf Fibre n.d.

Full size image

Therefore, the use of materials from both ecological cycles (technical and biological) becomes essential and useful in developing an efficient cycle that can be modified and adapted during the design process for the selection of textile biomaterials. Over time, the intensive use of materials from the biological cycle should be implemented. This could involve not only utilising fibres from natural resources such as leaves, seeds, peels and fruits but also incorporating living organisms such as fungi, bacteria and yeast, which are already part of nature and can provide organic nutrients for the soil after their end-of-life (Collet 2018). For example, an abaca fibre, as shown in Table 3, is used to produce a fabric called Bananatex (also known as Musa Textiles), which is considered a pioneer for the circular bioeconomy (QWSTION International GmbH 2022; Saxena and Chawla 2021). The fabric is 100% biodegradable and can be buried in the soil, where microorganisms break down the fibres through the secretion of cellulose enzymes, leading to a loss of tenacity. When exposed to influential conditions, this material loses its resistance, allowing the formation of essential nutrients that can be used to produce new abaca fibres, thus regenerating the material’s life cycle. This dynamic cycle of growing, generating and regenerating the flow of material in nature is aligned with the principles of circular frameworks and the practises of Biodesign (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure 6

The influence or interaction of properties as a function of a specific condition

Full size image

In addition, the development of new materials based on living organisms has come to the fore after experiments carried out in production laboratories such as BioLabs. They only have a chance of reaching the market if they can be produced on a large scale. As a result, several Biodesign-related companies have made efforts to extend their research to society. One example is AMSilk, which produces Biosteel Fibre, a biosynthetic biopolymer derived from the DNA of spider silk. However, other resources can also be used, such as mycelium by Ecovative or Mycoworks, which produces a next-generation material alternative to plastic and leather. Mycelium-based materials are strong, heat and flame resistant, biodegradable and compostable in the domestic environments (D’Olivo and Karana 2021).

Biofabrication is the new technological paradigm related to these materials that serve as the basis for the bioeconomy (Collet 2018). The use of biology and design technologies is driving the rapid development of various materials through sustainable production models that use renewable resources such as fungi, bacteria, yeast and algae (Sachsenmeier 2016). These renewable materials use little energy in their manufacturing processes, reducing their impact on the environment. Moreover, they are infinitely regenerable and serve as nutrients for the cultivation of new materials. This new industrial revolution has inspired various design communities around the world and ensures their democratisation through open and shared knowledge influenced by the models of nature described by Mancuso (2020), Oxman (2008) and Dyson (2007) in the Design for Sustainability beliefs presented (D’Olivo and Karana 2021). However, it is necessary to create opportunities for empowerment in order to these (bio)materials to find acceptance in the market. For example, while it may be possible to reach consumers through design, not all designers have the same knowledge to work with these materials. Ann Crabbé et al. (2013) points out that certain academic institutions, in materials and design encourage the development of new materials through hands-on experience to understand what the new material can offer in terms of function and experimentation. In this case, it is an evolution of the SM process. The designer not only selects the material but also develops it, calling himself a “material designer” (Creative Europe Programme of The European Union 2020) and adopting didactic insights related to the approach of “material tinkering” (i.e. a design practice to extract data, understand material properties and limitations and identify potentials through a tinkering process) (Forman et al. 2022). Tinkering becomes possible through the manipulation of material, doing and making (Parisi et al. 2017). However, only if the designer chooses which strategies to use to support their designs.

In this way, this work explores various situations that designers can analyse during the process of material selection in the context of textile biomaterials. These situations can lead to the acquisition of new knowledge, practises and models that can help the designer effectively handle biomateriality in his projects.

Understanding the positive and negative aspects of materials within the CE cycle is crucial in the design process. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation with IDEO (a global design company), on the materials selection activity, emphasises the importance of designers being knowledgeable about the chemistry of materials to understand their potential toxicity to the environment (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2017a). However, this area is not always included in academic curricula, such as understanding how materials are grown or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), derived from Genetic Engineering and produced by humans. The wide range of materials available today (as shown in Table 4) is the result of biotechnology, biofabrication and the digital world of Industry 5.0, which expands the scope of design in previously unseen ways. Some of these materials are more accessible than others, and it is crucial for designer to work with them to increase productivity, reduce costs and decrease the intensive use of environmentally harmful materials/compounds by making bio-products available to all consumers. In this way, it is necessary for designers to incorporate these issues into their design and product development processes and use decision-making processes that enable them to make informed choices. Furthermore, it is imperative to align the designer’s individual aesthetic with the desires and ethical values of consumers. This narrative allows the designer to actively engage in the entire process by identifying problems and finding solutions that address human needs and real-world challenges (Papanek 1984).

Conclusions

The materials shown, summarised in tables in this work, showcase just a glimpse of the vast array of sustainable materials that designers must be well-versed in to utilise or select for their projects. As the designer navigates through the intricate process of material selection and product design, they must consider various factors, including the influence of material properties, which are documented in this study. Understanding them, especially in terms of biodegradability, is one of these essential components of understanding biomaterials. This is because these materials, which are often associated with the premise that they are degradable, in reality, cannot acquire this property or do not have it in their composition. Participating in this study, which is grounded in the open exchange of knowledge and inspired by Dyson’s ideologies, as well as the systematic principles of Design for Sustainability, enables us to explore and draw important considerations regarding thinking materiality.

Additionally, the selection of materials (in this case biomaterials) can be challenging due to the scattered nature of available information. Hence, it is crucial for designers to have access to a consolidated and structured body of knowledge, such as the one presented in this study, that equips them to tackle different scenarios and make informed choices for textile biomaterials that are relevant to their application.

The DDP approach can be aligned also with Design for Sustainability principles, incorporating ideologies inspired by nature that significantly impact a designer’s decision-making process. Circular economy and bioeconomy principles, as well as dematerialisation, can be viewed from multiple perspectives, such as Biodesign practices where nature is incorporated, or biomimicry where nature is mimicked.

However, this research has raised questions about the designer’s position concerning this new materiality. As discussed earlier, several studies point out to be a distinction between two designer models: one who selects materials (as discussed in this work), and one who develops materials (commonly known as a material designer). This distinction becomes more apparent in the context of this work due to the limitation of designers lacking expertise in fields in Biology, Chemistry or Biochemistry and Genetic Engineering or Synthetic Biology to select biomaterials derived from living organisms such as mycelium, fungi and bacteria. Nonetheless, these limitations also create opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration between designers and microbiologists or other professionals, facilitating effective knowledge-sharing about this emerging materiality.

This work has identified key variables that contribute to a better understanding of biomaterials in the complex realm of design. Its findings will pave the way for future research related to the process of material selection in textile projects. In addition, new questions arise that will enable the development of a methodology for the selection of textile biomaterials, empowering designers to create with sustainable and future-forward resources.

Future Recommendations

The research presents a database comprising a range of available textile (bio) materials that designers can use in their project development. By studying these materials, it is possible to gain more knowledge about them and gain basic knowledge for the creation of guides such as diagrams to support the relationship or influence of the multiple material properties, which to some extent include the criteria to support the SM by the technical and functional properties of the materials. This dynamic allows us to understand the multitude of different materials that exist for similar applications but differ in some ways. In relation to new biomaterials, it is necessary to obtain more information so that they can be combined in a system that allows relationships to be established between the different phases of the product on LCA that in some way point or motivate the way to the circular economy. Furthermore, it is necessary to understand if these relationships make sense in the designer’s work, and if the diagrams created to support the discussion are indeed important for knowledge acquisition, i.e. for understanding the materials and later for monitoring them using tools for SM process.