Next Article in Journal
Snow Albedo Seasonality and Trend from MODIS Sensor and Ground Data at Johnsons Glacier, Livingston Island, Maritime Antarctica
Next Article in Special Issue
An Approach to Dynamic Sensing Data Fusion
Previous Article in Journal
Optimized Multi-Position Calibration Method with Nonlinear Scale Factor for Inertial Measurement Units
Previous Article in Special Issue
Electrocardiogram Classification Based on Faster Regions with Convolutional Neural Network
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sensors
Volume 19
Issue 16
10.3390/s19163570
sensors-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Fabrics and Garments as Sensors: A Research Update

by
Sophie Wilson
and
Raechel Laing
*
Materials Science and Technology, University of Otago, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2019, 19(16), 3570; https://doi.org/10.3390/s19163570
Submission received: 21 June 2019 / Revised: 2 August 2019 / Accepted: 12 August 2019 / Published: 15 August 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wearable Electronics, Smart Textiles and Computing)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Properties critical to the structure of apparel and apparel fabrics (thermal and moisture transfer, elasticity, and flexural rigidity), those related to performance (durability to abrasion, cleaning, and storage), and environmental effects have not been consistently addressed in the research on fabric sensors designed to interact with the human body. These fabric properties need to be acceptable for functionalized fabrics to be effectively used in apparel. Measures of performance such as electrical conductivity, impedance, and/or capacitance have been quantified. That the apparel/human body system involves continuous transient conditions needs to be taken into account when considering performance. This review highlights gaps concerning fabric-related aspects for functionalized apparel and includes information on increasing the inclusion of such aspects. A multidisciplinary approach including experts in chemistry, electronics, textiles, and standard test methods, and the intended end use is key to widespread development and adoption.

1. The Review in Context—Purpose, Scope, A Focus on Fabrics

The purpose of this review is to address the gap that exists in understanding fibers, yarns, fabrics, and apparel that form part of wearable technologies, specifically fabrics and garments as sensors. Interactions between the functionalized apparel and the human body in which transient conditions are experienced are highlighted. This is achieved by critically reviewing the published scientific literature on electrically conductive fabrics/fabric sensors. Given that wearable technology is one of the fastest-growing areas in clothing and textiles, a review focused on this fabric/garment-specific area is timely.
While several reviews related to wearable technologies have been published since the beginning of the 21st century, their foci differed from the aim of the present review (e.g., a broad summary and overview [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]; applications and/or end-use—for example, tennis [19], medical care [20], electrocardiographic monitoring [21], neurobiological rehabilitation [22], gait recognition [23], a smart textile suit [24], flexible lithium batteries [25], motion sensors [26], and human activity monitoring [27]; properties of functionalizing substances, including electrically-conductive polymers [28,29,30] and carbon-based materials [31,32,33,34]; processes for functionalizing, such as e-broidery [35]; and methods to determine performance properties [36,37,38]). Each of these reviews is written from a perspective other than fabrics. Where fabric has been considered, the differences in structure and fiber composition have been highlighted [5]; however, the effects on the performance properties of fabrics and apparel are often not determined.
This review is organized into sections on fabric structure, processes for applying functionalizing substances to yield electrical conductivity, and properties essential for apparel. Being based on peer-reviewed published scientific papers and book chapters, the review represents up-to-date knowledge. The published literature reveals a need to focus on fabrics and methods to determine the performance of functionalized fabrics. The review excludes self-contained devices (e.g., sensors, actuators, and batteries) integrated in apparel/textiles; functionalized fibers and yarns not processed to fabrics; and issues related to data production, collection, transmission, and management. Fabrics, electrically-conductive substances, application processes, and designated end use identified in the research are described in Table 1 and referenced throughout the review. (For convenience, key terms related to textiles for wearable technologies are defined in Table S1).

2. Fabrics—The Effect of Fiber Composition and Fabric Structure

Fabrics composed of natural or synthetic fibers are typically electrically insulating, and therefore require nontextile additions to become electrically conductive [161]. Fiber composition has been reported to have an effect on the electrical properties of fabrics despite differences in structural properties, including yarn diameter and fabric density. Woven fabrics of cotton, viscose, silk, wool, and polyester had an electrical resistivity of 1.76 × 1012 Ω/m, 3.62 × 1011 Ω/m, 2.40 × 1013 Ω/m, 2.30 × 1013 Ω/m, and 4.35 × 1013 Ω/m, respectively, at 35% relative humidity (RH) [114]. Structural properties also affect electrical properties, thus for such comparisons of fiber composition, all else should be the same except the property of interest. Details of fabrics that have been functionalized are given in column two of Table 1. Where relevant, units have been converted to SI, with those used in papers reported in brackets. Some descriptions of fabrics were incomplete. Omitting this information limits our understanding of fabrics critical to the resulting performance, and comparability among findings becomes difficult.
For fabric sensors, synthetic fibers (e.g., polyester, polyamide) and cotton fibers are most frequently used, with other natural fibers (e.g., silk, wool) and manmade fibers (e.g., viscose) used less (Table 1). Some investigators suggest the prominence of fiber type for apparel as the reason for selection (e.g., cotton, polyester [84,170]). Both wool and cotton can be considered high-end/expensive fibers [171], which may contribute to their limited use. The costs of production and end-user purchase become issues when the market sector is low-cost wearable technologies in mass production. Cost is not a defining factor for high-value sectors including medical and work safety. The inclusion of some form of elastane in fabrics/garments is desirable to increase the dimensional stability and therefore enhance sensor functionality by minimizing interference/noise. Moreover, if an electrically-conductive component moves as the fabric does, this may reduce displacement and degradation [172].
Electrical conductivity can be imparted to fibers, yarns, fabrics, or garments/apparel. Functionalized fibers and yarns need to withstand processing operations to fabrics and then garments that may damage (i.e., crack, break) them or remove the coating. For example, spinning and knitting have been shown to reduce treatment coverage [127]. Functionalizing fibers and yarns could result in superior fixation by penetrating the molecular structure, something difficult to achieve when functionalizing fabrics. However, subsequent processing and therefore potential damage is more or less eliminated when functionalizing fabrics. Most wearable applications require the functionalized textile to be in the form of a fabric or garment rather than a fiber or yarn to be worn on the body.
Woven structures are more common than knits, with nonwoven used much less (Table 1), perhaps due to the greater physical stability of interlaced yarns of wovens compared to interlocking loops in knits. Structural stability facilitates functionalizing fabrics and influences the use of these fabrics. However, knits are desirable for many wearable applications because of flexibility and elasticity. Plain and twill weaves are the most common examples of wovens, and satin structure is also sometimes used. In terms of knit fabrics, a common descriptor is weft knit, and single jersey and interlock are frequently used. Lesser use of nonwovens could be related to the relatively poor flexibility and elasticity, which accounts for their minimal use in apparel [173], but nonwovens do have potential for other applications in sensing (e.g., geotextiles [174], membranes [175], filters [176]).
Fabric properties relevant to an end application require consideration. Where available, these are listed in column two of Table 1. Fabric structure and fiber type are most commonly included, with fabric mass, thickness, and stitch density sometimes also specified. Descriptions with missing information, especially structure type and clarity in function, or those that are unclear are identified by the relevant symbol. The mass of woven fabrics ranged from ~60 g/m2 to 350 g/m2, with the most common values between 100 g/m2 and 200 g/m2; thickness values were between 0.1 mm and 0.4 mm, most commonly close to 0.4 mm, and the number of warp yarns (11 to 55) was typically greater than the number of weft yarns (10 to 60). In terms of knit fabrics, the mass was ~100 g/m2 to 380 g/m2, the thickness was ~0.4 mm to 0.7 mm, and of the five studies that included stitch density, the number of wales exceeded the courses in three. Therefore, the knits typically were heavier and thicker than the wovens. Other properties included linear density, yarn fineness, and fiber length. For nonwoven fabrics, only the fiber content was described, and there were some instances where the fabric structure was not given, i.e., only the fiber type was provided.
Electrically-conductive components can be applied in discrete locations or positioned in a sensor array: across the width, down the length, or in a grid structure over a garment [69]. To achieve specific applications (e.g., monitoring dynamic properties such as motion and physiological changes over time), the position of the sensor relative to the human body site is critical. Diversity in human size, shape, and proportion complicates both the sizing and the positioning of these sensors, with the risk of displacement [177,178]. The presence of elastane can improve the stability of sensor placement on the body [177]. Considering the target population, anthropometric requirements have been highlighted [177] and are essential for the successful development of wearable technologies.

3. Electrically Conductive Materials—Types and Incorporation Processes

3.1. Metal Filaments

3.1.1. Yarn Structure

Metal filaments including stainless steel and copper can be incorporated in yarns and fabrics to produce sensors as each has high inherent electrical conductivity, although these metals may exhibit properties incompatible with textiles (i.e., flexural rigidity, elasticity) [10,126]. Three structures of metal yarns for incorporation into fabric were identified:
  • Metal filaments only, spun in monofilament and multifilament yarns (e.g., Bekintex, a 100% spun continuous cold-drawn stainless-steel yarn, 1 Ω/cm [35]);
  • Metal filaments twisted with textile fibers/filaments in ply yarns. This process can decrease flexural rigidity and increase elasticity, albeit with lower electrical conductivity than 100% metal yarns (e.g., 5 KΩ to 10 KΩ for 150 cm length of 20% stainless/80% polyester [49]; and 40% polyester/40% copper/20% stainless steel [118] were electrically conductive);
  • Core and covered assemblies with metal filaments for the core, (e.g., stainless steel wrapped in silk fibers [43], copper wrapped with cotton in blends of 63% copper/33% cotton, 80% copper/20% cotton, and 90% copper/10% cotton [48]); and metal filaments used to cover textile cores (e.g., monofilament silver-plated copper twine with polyester core [49], nylon core wrapped with three stainless-steel filaments and metal clad (silver, nickel, copper, gold, tin) with aramid DuPont® core [35], and two stainless-steel yarns twisted around viscose yarns [120]).

3.1.2. Fabric Construction

Metal filaments can be incorporated in warp/weft or wales/courses in wovens and knits, respectively (Table 1). Shieldtex® yarn (silver-coated polyamide) seemed common for integrating in fabrics and for embroidery. Tubular intarsia knitting was frequently identified, desirable due to the seamless knitting minimizing discontinuity caused by stitched seams, which can disrupt electrical transmission. Intarsia fabrics were often double-faced to protect electrically-conductive yarns between the two faces from exposure to light, moisture, and abrasion. However, the increased thickness of the double layer may be unacceptable for some wearable applications, particularly when worn next to the skin.
Yarns are exposed to tension and abrasion during fabric construction, and metal filaments may not be resistant to these. However, yarns of copper (40 μm) twisted with polyester were processed in a plain weave [2] and twist drawn 316 L stainless-steel filaments and woolen yarns were processed with a flatbed knitting machine and hand knitting [40] to yield electrically-conductive fabrics (Table 1). Unfortunately, some experimental details and evidence to support claims were missing. One example provided evidence of fabric (knit, structure not described) exhibiting lower electrical resistivity compared to the yarns (20% stainless steel/80% polyester yarn) from which they were manufactured [49] (Table 1). The reduced electrical resistivity of fabric was attributed to more contact points between staple fibers in the fabric than in the yarn [49]. The use of electrical resistivity makes comparisons between yarns and fabrics acceptable because area is considered. However, the narrow linear dimensions of yarns compared to complex planar structures of fabrics should be considered.
Differences in electrical conductivity can be related to the direction of integration. Differences in performance between wale and course are evident: one investigation suggested that the course direction has greater stability [118], while another suggested greater stability in the wale direction [120] (Table 1). Knit structures do vary in terms of the stability, the structure itself (i.e., single jersey, interlock, rib), and whether a warp or weft knit will affect the fabric properties.

3.1.3. Embroidery

Yarns of 100% metal composition can be difficult to embroider. Yarn flexural rigidity causes challenges for manipulation through mechanics of machine sewing, threading needles, and sewing through fabric [35]. For instance, a 100% stainless-steel yarn (Bekintex) cannot be sewn using embroidery techniques, but a couching technique can be used to fasten to fabric [35]. A variation of this yarn (Bekintex 15/2) can be machine embroidered with constraints of the short length of staple fibers causing short circuits [35]. Other stainless-steel yarns with a very fine diameter (e.g., 100 µm, 12 µm, 2 µm) can be machine sewn [35]. Specialized machines or settings may also help minimize potential damage to electrically-conductive yarns and fabrics.
Fabric sensors have been successfully developed with embroidery techniques by blending metal filaments with textile fibers (Table 1). A nylon core wrapped with three stainless-steel filaments can be sewn with an embroidery machine [35]. Silver-plated nylon yarn (140/17 dtex) was embroidered on cotton fabric (0.43 mm) and demonstrated to perform as a humidity sensor between 25% and 65% at 20 °C based on changes in impedance [56]. Subsequently, the same researchers determined that Shieldtex® 117/17 dtex 2-ply (polyamide and silver) had lower sensitivity to humidity (30% to 65%) than Bekaert yarns of 80% polyester/20% stainless steel, 80% cotton/20% stainless steel embroidered on 100% cotton (0.43 mm) [54].
Circuits to facilitate sensing have also been made of embroidered yarns. For example, conductive yarn was embroidered on 100% cotton satin, followed by drop coating of polymer and single-walled carbon nanotube solutions, and showed responsiveness in electrical resistance to volatile compounds (e.g., ethanol, pyridine, methanol) [58]. No reference to the effects on flexural rigidity nor to the elasticity of the resulting fabric were included, but embroidery is a possible integration process.
Factors that interfere with sensor functionality, such as manufacturing variability, have been explored. Shieldtex® 117/17 dtex 2-ply embroidered on cotton fabric (0.43 mm) with a satin fill stitch pattern (Singer Futura XL-550 embroidery machine) was reported with an error of up to 6% in impedance measured from 25%RH to 65%RH over 10 specimens [55]. If the textile sensors are designed for use in critical applications such as health care and safety, scrutiny of the variability in sensor performance is essential. Such investigations into manufacturing variability would also be useful for other functionalisation processes (e.g., fabric treatments).

3.2. Fabric Treatments

3.2.1. Intrinsically-Electrically-Conductive Polymers

Intrinsically-electrically-conductive polymers offer another option for conferring electrical conductivity (<10−10 S/cm insulators, <10−5 S/cm semi-conductors, 102 S/cm conductors), attributable to the conjugated chemical structure and additives (dopant, monomer, oxidant) [5,10,30]. Intrinsically-electrically-conductive polymers exhibit challenging properties including brittleness, comparatively poor flexural rigidity, and poor resistance to abrasive processes [10,30]. Combining with textiles can ameliorate some poor performance properties [30], although durability is an ongoing challenge.
In terms of fabric application, many polymerization processes have been used, and intrinsically-electrically-conductive polymers were more commonly applied to wovens than knits to confer electrical conductivity (Table 1). The efficacy of polymer application is related to the surface to which it is applied, emphasizing the importance of both the fabric structure and the fiber composition. For example, of 14 woven fabrics treated by vapor deposition of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), those with high porosity had lower electrical resistance and the fiber composition of the fabrics could be ordered from lowest to highest: bast, cotton, silk, linen, wool, and rayon [75]. However, separating the effects of fiber type and porosity is not possible with unmatched fabrics, i.e., multiple fabric parameters differed. The same trend of fiber type was demonstrated with 760-mm (3”) yarns extracted and treated by vapor deposition of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) [75], although the yarn properties could also differ (i.e., twist, ply). Testing fabrics of the same fiber composition and base structure but with different porosity would provide a useful comparison.

3.2.2. Carbon-Based Substances

Carbon-based substances are desirable to impart electrical properties to fabrics, since they are a natural source and exhibit high electrical conductivity (e.g., 104 S/cm) [7]. Carbon is most commonly applied in the form of carbon nanotubes, single- or multi-walled. Different processes to functionalize fabrics with carbon include dipping [84,86] and screen printing [84]. Carbon has been applied to woven fabrics [79,80,81,82,84,86] and, much less frequently, to knit fabrics [125,133] (Table 1). However, one fabric is referred to as knit, whereas the image appears to be woven [133], which illustrates scant attention to fabrics. Carbon-loaded rubber has also been reported to have acceptable performance for sensing garment prototypes, similar to that of existing sensor devices (e.g., WEALTHY [120], a piezoresistive sensor [42], and the Arctic project [116]). No evidence of carbon-treated fibers or yarns subsequently processed to fabrics was found.
Graphene is desirable to yield electrically-conductive fabrics, notwithstanding the high cost and small production volumes [179]. However, reduced cost is evident since first use, and growing demand for graphene may lead to increased production and decreased cost [180]. One example of the integration of cotton yarns treated with graphene constructed in a knit (interlock of nylon filament double-covered Lycra®) was identified, imparting electrical conductivity and responsiveness to changes in temperature [135]. A comparison between fiber and fabric treated with reduced graphene oxide was also identified [155]. Reduced graphene oxide was applied to wool and glass fibers, and aramid, polyester, cotton, and nylon fabric [155]. The measurements were reported as per cm, which improves the comparability, but structural differences between yarns and fabrics are apparent, i.e., narrow linear substrate of fibers in yarn form and a complex planar structure of fibers and yarns in fabric form.
In terms of fabrics, graphene has been applied to wovens and knits composed of cotton, polyester, polyamide, wool and also to some nonwovens (Table 1). Graphene application to fabric involves three main steps: i) oxidization of graphite to produce graphene oxide (Hummers method); ii) application of graphene oxide to fabric; and iii) reduction reaction (chemical, thermal, ultraviolet light). Published investigations indicate that application followed by reduction is an effective process. However, a publication in 2017 suggested that reducing graphene oxide in solution with sodium hydrosulfite followed by subsequent pad-dry application to 100% cotton 3/1 twill was more efficient to produce electrically-conductive fabrics while maintaining a cost-effective process [94] (Table 1).

4. Properties of Fabrics Functionalized for Electrical Conductivity

4.1. Key Properties

The efficacy of sensor performance is determined by the change in electrical conductivity after exposure to an agent (e.g., volatiles [58], human body parameters [42,43]); the effect on impedance and capacitance can also be measured. In vitro investigations are common, with in vivo studies carried out much less frequently. Undertaking sequential in vitro and in vivo investigations is useful to demonstrate performance. Experimental work is mostly proof of concept evidenced by laboratory tests, including electrical conductivity [115], impedance [137], and/or capacitance [110]. Typically, the incorporation procedure is explained, as are lab-based phases of some performance properties. The evidence of treatment deposition is frequently quantified, specifically microlevel presence, including atomic force microscopy [110], scanning electron microscopy [93,97,115], transmission electron microscopy [166,167], Raman spectroscopy [106,142,181], Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy [93,106,142,181], and X-ray diffraction spectroscopy [106,181]. Proof of concept studies are important; however, expanding knowledge of performance over time and related to end use is required if the products are to reach commercial applications.
The conventional properties of apparel and apparel fabrics need to be retained, a point that is not often taken into account. The issue is whether the change in function is practically important (e.g., whether changes in properties are detectable instrumentally or perceptible when used by humans). Key properties for apparel include thermal and moisture transfer, elasticity, flexural rigidity, resistance to abrasion, care treatments, and environmental effects in use and disposal. Drape is related to the form of the fabric when worn on the body, related to flexural rigidity and elasticity, and not considered in research on fabric sensors. Apparel fabrics are not routinely exposed to high levels of tensile stress compared to fabrics which may be used for applications such as parachutes or harnesses. Therefore, tensile breaking strength is not considered a key property. However, repeated small extension and relaxation cycles, i.e., elasticity, are important.
Standard test methods are preferred unless there is a good reason for not doing so. Table S2 lists the standard test methods for measuring properties relevant to apparel and apparel fabrics, and gives examples of their use in published papers. International standards are more desirable than national or regional standards because of the wide acceptance.

4.2. Measurement of Electrical Resistance

Table 2 gives the standard methods available to determine the electrical properties of fabrics, developed by the European Organization Supporting Standardization for Smart Textiles (SUSTASMART) [38], the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) [182], and the European Committee for Standardization [183]. Throughout the review, findings related to electrical conductivity are reported as they appear in the published work, i.e., measurement units are not converted.
Evidence of use of standards in published research was sparse; instead only the instrument and technique is described (e.g., multimeter). The two-probe method is often used to measure yarns or narrow strips of fabric and the four-probe method for larger specimens. A recognized challenge of the two-probe method is that the measurement includes the electrical resistance of the textile, leads, and connectors, which typically varies among instruments [10]. A four-point measurement can ameliorate this [184]. Consensus in terminology (i.e., electrical conductivity or resistance) and units would be useful. Electrical conductivity is usually referenced, but supported with information about electrical resistance; sometimes it is converted to the electrical resistivity considering area (square, length, width, mass, and/or thickness).
In laboratory experiments, relative humidity and temperature are not always reported and/or controlled. This is important due to the effects of temperature and moisture presence on electrical properties as well as on many fiber types. For example, a change in humidity (25% and 65% at 20 °C) caused a change in the impedance of cotton fabric (0.43 mm) with embroidered silver-plated nylon yarn [56]; and a graphene/methyl-red composite and silver nanoparticles inkjet printed on polyethylene terephthalate showed reduced electrical resistance with increased relative humidity [191]. In terms of changes in temperature, the change in electrical conductivity of a graphene-based sensor in response to carbon dioxide differed when conditions of 40 °C and 60 °C were compared to 22 °C [192], and a graphene nanowall film on polydimethylsiloxane increased in electrical resistance from 706.2 Ω at 25 °C to 98.04 KΩ at 120 °C [193]. The effect differs depending on the moisture absorption and heat conduction properties of the textile and electronic materials. Experimental work on textile fibers, yarns, fabrics, and apparel needs to be carried out under controlled conditions, or the conditions at least need to be monitored and reported. Additionally, wear trials are limited and the transient conditions seem not to have been considered.

4.3. Apparel-Specific Properties

4.3.1. Thermal and Moisture Transfer

The environment, metabolic activity, and work of humans contribute to heat production. Apparel resists transfer of heat and moisture compared to a noncovered body, thus affecting homeostasis [194]. Textile variables with reported effects on thermal and moisture transfer include fiber diameter, type, hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity, and length [195]; yarn twist and diameter; fabric construction, i.e., size and number of interstitial spaces, thickness, and surface treatments [7,194,195,196]; garment fit, air spaces, and layering [197]. All textile fibers have similar thermal conductivity, with the presence of air having the greatest effect [196]. The effect of apparel and fabric structure overrides that of fiber type [197]; fiber type has an effect when moisture is present [197].
Six studies demonstrated the effects of electrically-conductive coatings on thermal and moisture transfer (Table 3). The composition of treatments, fabric structure, fiber composition, and methods to determine performance varied, and the trends in performance were inconsistent. Permeability to air, permeability to water vapor, and water retention decreased after functionalization in two investigations [93,131], while another study reported minimal changes in permeability to water vapor and air following functionalization [115]. Thermal conductivity was reported to increase in a different study [65]. Changes can be attributed to electrically-conductive treatments encapsulating the fabric, yarn, and/or fiber, causing changes to interstitial spaces [93,115], and fabric thickness [131].
Of the standard test methods, some may be more suitable than others. The applicability of ASTM D6767-14:2014 and ISO 8096:2005 to the thermal transfer of fabrics is not known given that the intended application of the fabric was not given [93]. Because properties measured were known to be relevant to human physiology (e.g. thermal and moisture transfer), wearable applications were assumed, thus using a method related to geotextiles may not be applicable. Also, the fabrics were not rubber- or plastic-coated as specified in the method, but treated with graphene oxide. In the absence of more specific methods, the difference of treatment type could be acceptable. ISO 11092:2014 Textiles‒Physiological effects‒Measurement of thermal and water-vapor resistance under steady-state conditions (sweating guarded hotplate test) may be more acceptable [198]. Permeability to water vapor was measured with a cup method, and water retention determined with an immersion technique [131] rather than a standard test method such as ISO 11092:2014 Textiles‒Physiological effects‒Measurement of thermal and water-vapor resistance under steady-state conditions (sweating guarded-hotplate test) and BS 7209:1990 Specification for water vapor permeable apparel fabrics (Table S2.) [198,199]. However, detailed descriptions of the methods used were provided, which is especially important for understanding and potentially replicating such an investigation.

4.3.2. Elasticity and Flexural Rigidity

Elasticity (extension and recovery) and flexural rigidity are critical properties for fabrics worn close to the body with continuous multidirectional changes [200,201]. No fabrics are totally elastic (i.e., viscoelastic, creep [202]). Several textile variables affect elasticity: fiber type, i.e., chemical and molecular structure, and inherent crimp [203,204]; yarn twist and presence of elastane [42,118,125,205]; fabric structure [200,206]; and garment construction, principally seams and layering [200].
Electrically-conductive treatments can decrease the elasticity of fabrics due to adhesion between fibers and yarns caused by increased diameter and/or filling interstitial spaces. Some reduction in elasticity may be acceptable for outerwear, but less so for next-to-skin apparel. The effects of electrically-conductive treatments on elastic performance of fabrics seem not to have been considered. Investigations on extension and sometimes recovery relate to the performance and reliability of stretch sensors [41,125]. Extension and recovery can cause cracking or distortion of treatments, negatively affecting electrical conductivity. However, surface cracking has been used as a measure of change in electrical resistance for strain sensing functions due to separation and connection with extension and recovery, respectively [141,142].
Functionalizing fabrics with electrically-conductive treatments can lead to a reduction in fabric bending. Flexural rigidity, shear modulus, and force hysteresis, measured with the fabric assurance by simple testing (FAST) method and the Kawabata evaluation system for fabrics (KES-FB), increased following polyurethane treatment on three-layer weft knits constructed of stainless steel/polyester and carbon core/polyester yarns [131]. FAST and KES-FB are established, but not standard methods nor widely adopted. Thus, investigations of the effects on fabric flexural rigidity are limited in number and scope.
The effect of repeated bending on electrical properties has been investigated. For instance, stainless-steel yarns treated with reduced graphene oxide, manganese dioxide, and polypyrrole maintained capacitance (80%, 91%, 103%) following deformation tests (1000 90° bends, knots, twists, respectively) [40]. Degradation of ~20% capacitance and reduced electrical conductivity of carbon-coated plain weft knit and plain woven carbon fiber patches occurred following repeated bending at 90°, 135°, and 180° while fastened to a hinged wooden plank [172]. The authors suggested this was caused by loosening and/or delamination of a carbon coating [172]. An angle of 90° was used, but the other bending techniques and angles differed and therefore the results are not directly comparable. Repeated cycles related to the end use are desirable to understand the performance during use. Investigations with standard methods would enhance the determination of performance.
A change in electrical conductivity with extension/recovery and bending is desirable for detecting changes if these are the properties of interest (e.g., for body movement, respiration, heart rate). However, when sensing other parameters (e.g., the presence of gas, a change in humidity and/or temperature), the changes in electrical conductivity can confound the response, providing misinformation. This is a challenge that seems not to have been addressed. Changes can also indicate degradation if the electrical properties do not recover.

4.4. Effects of Use

4.4.1. Resistance to Abrasion

Abrasion can damage fabrics by fibrillation, yarn breakage, holing, unacceptable appearance (e.g., fuzzing and pilling), and an overall reduction in strength. Damage to fabrics functionalized with electrically-conductive substances can be due to treatment displacement and removal or inherent degradation, i.e., cracking. As a result, the electrical conductivity is typically reduced.
Poor resistance to abrasion was evident in most investigations. Graphene-treated knit and woven fabrics (140 g/m2) increased from 6.47 MΩ/square and 7.92 MΩ/square to 10.96 MΩ/square and 13.30 MΩ/square, respectively, after dry rubbing; following wet rubbing they increased by 0.61 times and 0.67 times, respectively [93]. Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)-treated 100% polyester woven fabric increased from 1.0 KΩ/square to 1.5 KΩ/square or 0.6 KΩ/square to 1.9 KΩ/square with and without fluorinated decyl polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane following 10,000 abrasion cycles as per ASTM D4966 [76]. Poor resistance to dry and wet rubbing has also been reported for polypyrrole-treated knit of 20% treated/80% nontreated, and 100% treated fibers (structural information was omitted) [126]. These properties were determined in accordance with ISO 105X12: 2016 [207]. The use of a standard test method is desirable; however, ISO 105X12: 2016 is a test for color fastness and thus not directly applicable to electrically-conductive treatments. The Martindale test, in accordance with ISO 12945-2:2000 for pilling and ISO 12947-2:2016 for abrasion, is possibly more acceptable. Abrasion with the Martindale test resulted in the increased electrical resistance of 100% wool woven treated with poly-3-decanylpyrrole [61]. Including information related to the number and type of cycles would be useful to indicate performance.
Non-standard test methods have also been used in investigations. For example, polypyrrole-coated woven craft store fabrics differing in fiber content (wool, cotton, linen, silk, bamboo rayon, pineapple and banana fiber bast) have been shown to retain electrical conductivity following rubbing with bare hands and scraping with the sharp end of a metal spatula [75]. This is an example of low-intensity rubbing compared to the standard methods, and is less desirable due to the limited applicability to end-use practices, control, and repeatability.

4.4.2. Cleaning Treatments

Cleaning of fabric sensors is complex due to the material composition, including fibrous assemblies (i.e., fabric structure, layers), electronics, polymers, and other treatments. Failure of one component could result in failure of the assembly, consequently cleaning needs to be appropriate for the apparel as whole, not each separately. In cleaning, there are several options including water volume, wash temperature, duration, spin speed, and detergent. Selection of these is governed by fiber and fabric type and, to some extent, garment type. Multiple washes for repeated use and performance over time are useful because the effect of the first wash often differs from that of subsequent washes. Repeated wash cycles were not common.
Examples of investigations to determine the durability to cleaning (washing or dry cleaning) are described in Table 4. Poor fastness was common, evidenced by increased electrical resistance. Some researchers claimed durability to cleaning, although the evidence provided was typically inadequate. The results included in Table 4 are reported as they are presented in the papers. The methods used are varied (some standard methods and some others), and comparability among studies is thus limited. Sparse information was provided, so including the details of the cleaning cycles of both standard and other methods is useful.
Methods for cleaning often include dipping in water or a detergent mixture, mechanical agitation, rinsing, and drying [47,50,75,86,92,97,98,120,164] (Table 4). Some apparel requires hand washing, but machine washing is more common. In comparison to standard methods for machine washing (e.g., ISO 6330, ISO BS EN 105 C06, ISO 105-C03, AATCC 61-2A, AATCC 132, AATCC 86), these techniques were low-intensity and less representative of normal practice for apparel. Durability to machine washing has been tested following standard methods, international [45,77,93,94,115,116,122,126,127,146] and national [73,76,90,109], as well as nonstandard methods [47,91,162]. Using a device such as a thermal magnetic stirrer [96,138] has merit in terms of the controlled mechanical agitation (i.e., revolutions per minute), the size of the spinning rod, and the temperature. Small specimens are typically investigated, and controlling the agitation is difficult; the use of small-scale simulation permits control. Where possible, the process should be mechanized.

4.4.3. Storage

The effect and conditions of storage require consideration. Changes in electrical properties over time are difficult to estimate and depend on the conditions of storage, including temperature, relative humidity, and light [36,184]. Consistency in performance over time is essential for multiple-use and single-use products because of reuse, unknown shelf life, and logistics prior to use. Minimizing the change over time related to experiments is also important to avoid confounding effects, and thus needs to be considered when designing experiments. Hanging can result in dimensional changes due to the effects of mass of the fabric, typical of knit structures, so flat storage is desirable. Layering fabrics should also be avoided to prevent any compression effect.
Evidence of degradation of the electrical properties of functionalized fabrics over time has been identified, in which the effects of temperature, relative humidity, and light are not separated and the descriptions are incomplete. For example, the electrical resistance of polypyrrole-treated Lycra® increased and the piezoresistive response decreased due to ageing (i.e., oxidation) [70]. Polypyrrole films doped with p-toluenesulfonate increased in stiffness and brittleness, and decreased in electrical conductivity, breaking strain, elasticity, and elongation following four months of ageing at room temperature [208]. Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) treated pineapple fiber woven fabric has been reported to retain an electrical conductivity of 298 S/cm following six months’ storage (benchtop in air) [75]. Thus, measuring the properties immediately following application does not give a clear indication of the performance over time, and the extent of degradation over time will vary based on the materials. The effects of factors cannot always be discriminated due to omitting details and/or not controlling aspects of storage.

4.4.4. Environmental Effects

Considering the potential dispersion of electrically-conductive substances in the environment during use (e.g., wear and cleaning) and at the end of life (e.g., reuse and disposal) is important. Negative effects on human health and ecosystems may be attributed to substances being released into the environment. Taking into account effects on the environment is timely given increased international interest in sustainability, i.e., managing the resources and waste associated with a growing population, and greater awareness of microfiber release from apparel and other textile products during use and when disposed of [209,210]. The added complexity of diverse chemical compositions of substances used to functionalize fabrics could heighten the risks associated with the pollution, absorption, dissemination, and consumption of contaminants [211].
Naturally-sourced fibers such as cotton and wool, are desirable in terms of biodegradability compared to petroleum-based fibers such as polyamide and polyester. Managing chemicals and outputs for the production of fibers, yarn, fabric, and apparel processing is a challenge [212,213]. Diversity of fiber composition is desirable because each has advantages and disadvantages for end-use applications and in terms of effects on the environment [214]. Various other factors such as longevity and frequency of use, care, and process of reuse/disposal require consideration. The investigation of methods that require fewer chemical processes to produce regenerated cellulose (cotton, flax, linen, hemp, bamboo) or discoveries of other sources (e.g., coffee, fish skin) may be of interest. Naturally-occurring microorganisms have been discovered to have the ability to break down and use manmade fibers as an energy source (e.g., Aspergillus tubingensis can degrade polyester polyurethane [215], Ideonella sakaiensis can use polyethylene terephthalate as a source of energy and carbon [216], and polyethylene (HDPE) can be degraded by Achroia grisella [217]).
Full lifecycle assessment and other investigations such as degradation with exposure to microorganisms over a period of time provide useful information, yet is a challenging task. Examples of lifecycle assessments focusing on electrically-conductive fabrics and smart textiles were identified [218,219]. Specifically, a lifecycle assessment (eco-costs/value ratio) of the manufacture, use, transport, disposal and effects of considering eco-design, especially at the early stages (e.g., conception, design), was undertaken with a functionalized next-to-skin fabric prototype, Vibe-ing, designed for vibration therapy [219]. Vibe-ing is rib knit apparel composed of merino wool (Greggio Millennium yarn), elastane, silver-coated yarns (Bekitex), and knitted Elektrisola lines with knitted pockets containing 3D printed cases to hold printed circuit boards and vibration motors [219]. The production phase was reported to have the highest impact, wherein the electronic components had a greater impact than the textile sections, but merino wool production also had a high impact [219]. Thus, selecting materials was considered a primary factor. The authors suggested changing to copper could reduce the eco-costs by 45% over the use of silver, and acryl could decrease the eco-costs by 22% compared to wool [219]. However, copper will affect the aesthetic properties, and acryl may increase the level of cleaning required and therefore increases the impacts of the in-use phase. Reducing materials was also considered, i.e., a 75% reduction of Elektrisola, for which functionality was still considered possible [219].
Challenges related to the eco-design of electronic textiles, specifically material efficiency, hazardous substances, product obsolescence, and end of life, have been explored in a review-style paper and workshops with people of industry related to electronic textiles [218]. The authors highlighted the potential of applying established eco-design principles (e.g., Design for Recycling), the importance of labeling to implement such processes, compatibility standards to reduce obsolescence, and the importance of considering environmental consequences at the concept/design phases of production [218]. Disposal of conventional textiles and electronics was discussed, as was the difficulty of handling the heterogeneous waste of the combined textiles and electronics [220].
Lifecycle assessment was also performed for sensing fabrics not intended for wearables, i.e., sensing floor [221], curtain fabrics [222]. A key finding was the disparity between the fabrics in use (e.g., functionalized fire retardant wool washed 25 times compared to silver-nanoparticle-treated polyester washed 100 times with different wash temperatures, changing the energy consumption and the potential release of substances during the wash) [222]. Moreover, when disposed of, the items cannot be considered municipal solid waste nor conventional textiles (e.g., incineration has benefits over being in landfill, but there are unknown effects of emission in the air from the additional functionalized substances) [222]. Therefore, a consideration of the specific materials used in fabric sensors is critical for determining the environmental effects of use and disposal, i.e., we cannot extrapolate about other fabrics based on functionalized materials, nor on conventional fabrics.
The introduction of certification requirements for quality control and reducing environmental effects is necessary. Effective disposal of fabric sensors of wearable technologies is a necessity to manage the increasing demand [37]. As of 2019, no certification requirements were identified for fabric sensors or wearable technologies made from textiles. Investigation and formation of rules and regulations regarding disposal could be performed by institutions such as Oeko-Tex and/or government organizations [37]. Legislation exists for the disposal of electrical equipment, including the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment directive established by the EU. However, the applicability of this legislation to textiles with electronic components is not clear. Challenges in conventional electronic routes have been suggested, including rejection at collection points, discarding by recycling companies, novelty of the electronic/textile assembly, and equipment issues (e.g., jam shredders, crushers, incompatible with separators) [220]. An alternative option is secondhand clothing, as the items are still wearable even if the functionalization is lost, especially if the electronic components are inconspicuous [220]. Functionalized apparel could also be handled by conventional textile routes; however, the electronic components may be incompatible with certain disposal processes (e.g., shredding) and thus could contaminate the output [220]. Manual separation is also an option, albeit a difficult one.

5. Conclusions

Omitting specifics related to fabrics, experimental details, and results of studies limits our understanding of the research findings. Despite this, some comprehensive descriptions and studies have been carried out that exemplify detail needed. Diverse processes for functionalization can be used with varying success to impart electrical conductivity. Minimizing the changes to apparel properties (i.e., changes to thermal and moisture transfer, elasticity, flexural rigidity), ensuring durability, and managing the environmental effects of production are ongoing challenges.
Standard test methods for determining fabric performance are rarely used and the acceptability of conventional fabric test methods is not clear given the addition of nontextile components. A multidisciplinary approach involving experts from the fields of chemistry, electronics, and textiles, and those involved in development of standard methods, is required to meet this challenge.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/19/16/3570/s1, Table S1: Terms and definitions facilitate understanding for a multidisciplinary readership; Table S2: Standard methods for determining properties of fabrics: examples of international and national standards to determine fabric properties.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.L. and S.W.; Validation, R.L.; Investigation, S.W.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, S.W.; Writing—Review & Editing, R.L. and S.W.; Supervision, R.L.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

Scholarships supported the principal author of this work: University of Otago Doctoral Scholarship, BPW Hawera Women’s Education Scholarship, Robert and Aileen Morton Charitable Trust Award, and Lithgow Family Foundation Scholarship.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Meoli, D.; May-Plumlee, T. Interactive electronic textile development: A review of technologies. J. Text. Appar. Technol. Manag. 2002, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  2. Marculescu, D.; Marculescu, R.; Zamora, N.H.; Stanley-Marbell, P.; Khosla, P.K.; Park, S.; Jayaraman, S.; Jung, S.; Lauterbach, C.; Weber, W.; et al. Electronic textiles: A platform for pervasive computing. Proc. IEEE 2003, 91, 1995–2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rutherford, J.J. Wearable technology. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag. 2010, 29, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Chan, M.; Esteve, D.; Fourniols, J.Y.; Escriba, C.; Campo, E. Smart wearable systems: Current status and future challenges. Artif. Intell. Med. 2012, 56, 137–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Castano, L.M.; Flatau, A.B. Smart fabric sensors and e-textile technologies: A review. Smart Mater. Struct. 2014, 23, 053001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Stoppa, M.; Chiolerio, A. Wearable electronics and smart textiles: A critical review. Sensors 2014, 14, 11957–11992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Zeng, W.; Shu, L.; Li, Q.; Chen, S.; Wang, F.; Tao, X.M. Fibre-based wearable electronics: A review of materials, fabrication, devices, and applications. Adv. Mater. 2014, 26, 5310–5336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Syduzzaman, M.; Patwary, S.U.; Farhana, K.; Ahmed, S. Smart textiles and nano-technology: A general overview. J. Text. Sci. Eng. 2015, 5, 1000181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Guler, S.D.; Gannon, M.; Sicchio, K. A brief history of wearables. In Crafting Wearables; Apress: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 3–10. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ghahremani Honarvar, M.; Latifi, M. Overview of wearable electronics and smart textiles. J. Text. Inst. 2017, 108, 631–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Park, S.; Jayaraman, S. The wearable revolution and big data: The textile lineage. J. Text. Inst. 2017, 108, 605–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Goncalves, C.; Ferreira da Silva, A.; Gomes, J.; Simoes, R. Wearable e-textile technologies: A review on sensors, actuators and control elements. Inventions 2018, 3, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Heo, J.S.; Eom, J.; Kim, Y.H.; Park, S.K. Recent progress of textile-based wearable electronics: A comprehensive review of materials, devices, and applications. Small 2018, 14, 1703034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hughes-Riley, T.; Dias, T.; Cork, C. A historical review of the development of electronic textiles. Fibers 2018, 6, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Vagott, J.; Parachuru, R. An overview of recent developments in the field of wearable smart textiles. J. Text. Sci. Eng. 2018, 8, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wilson, S.; Laing, R.M. Wearable technology: Present and future. In Proceedings of the 91st Textile Institute World Conference, Leeds, UK, 23–26 July 2018; pp. 266–280. [Google Scholar]
  17. Costa, J.C.; Spina, F.; Lugoda, P.; Garcia-Garcia, L.; Roggen, D.; Munzenrieder, N. Flexible sensors—From materials to applications. Technologies 2019, 7, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, B.J.; Facchetti, A. Mechanically flexible conductors for stretchable and wearable e-skin and e-textile devices. Adv. Mater. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Chittenden, T. Skin in the game: The use of sensing smart fabrics in tennis costume as a means of analysing performance. Fash. Text. 2017, 4, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Massaroni, C.; Saccomandi, P.; Schena, E. Medical smart textiles based on fibre optic technology: An overview. J. Funct. Biomater. 2015, 6, 204–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Pani, D.; Achilli, A.; Bonfiglio, A. Survey on textile electrode technologies for electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring, from metal wires to polymers. Adv. Mater. Technol. 2018, 3, 1800008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. McLaren, R.; Joseph, F.; Baguley, C.; Taylor, D. A review of e-textiles in neurological rehabilitation: How close are we? J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2016, 13, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yang, G.; Tan, W.; Jin, H.; Zhao, T.; Tu, L. Review wearable sensing system for gait recognition. Clust. Comput. 2018, 21, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Paradiso, R.; De Toma, G.; Mancuso, C. Smart textile suit. In Seamless Healthcare Monitoring: Advancements in Wearable, Attachable, and Invisible Devices; Tamura, T., Chen, W., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 251–277. [Google Scholar]
  25. Zhou, G.; Li, F.; Cheng, H.M. Progress in flexible lithium batteries and future prospects. Energy Environ. Sci. 2014, 7, 1307–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dobkin, B.H. Wearable motion sensors to continuously measure real-world physical activities. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 2013, 26, 602–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Mukhopadhyay, S.C. Wearable sensors for human activity monitoring: A review. IEEE Sens. J. 2015, 15, 1321–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kumar, D.; Sharma, R.C. Advances in conductive polymers. Eur. Polym. J. 1998, 34, 1053–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Carpi, F.; De Rossi, D. Electroactive polymer-based devices for e-textiles in biomedicine. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 2005, 9, 295–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Grancaric, A.M.; Jerkovic, I.; Koncar, V.; Cochrane, C.; Kelly, F.M.; Soulat, D.; Legrand, X. Conductive polymers for smart textile applications. J. Ind. Text. 2017, 48, 612–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lu, W.; Zu, M.; Byun, J.H.; Kim, B.S.; Chou, T.W. State of the art of carbon nanotube fibres: Opportunities and challenges. Adv. Mater. 2012, 24, 1805–1833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Molina, J. Graphene-based fabrics and their applications: A review. R. Soc. Chem. Adv. 2016, 6, 68261–68291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Suvarnaphaet, P.; Pechprasarn, S. Graphene-based materials for biosensors: A review. Sensors 2017, 17, 2161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Yan, T.; Wang, Z.; Pan, Z.J. Flexible strain sensors fabricated using carbon-based nanomaterials: A review. Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 2018, 22, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Post, E.R.; Orth, M.; Russo, P.R.; Gershenfeld, N. E-broidery: Design and fabrication of textile-based computing. IBM Syst. J. 2000, 39, 840–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Stoppa, M.; Chiolerio, A. Testing and evaluation of wearable electronic textiles and assessment thereof. In Performance Testing of Textiles: Methods, Technology and Applications; Wang, L., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2016; pp. 65–101. [Google Scholar]
  37. Wainwright, H.L. Design, evaluation, and applications of electronic textiles. In Performance Testing of Textiles: Methods, Technology and Applications; Wang, L., Ed.; Elsevier: Cambridge, UK, 2016; pp. 193–212. [Google Scholar]
  38. Decaens, J.; Vermeersch, O. Specific testing for smart textiles. In Advanced Characterisation and Testing of Textiles; Dolez, P.I., Vermeersch, O., Izquierdo, V., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2018; pp. 351–371. [Google Scholar]
  39. Zamora, M.L.; Dominguez, J.M.; Trujillo, R.M.; Goy, C.B.; Sanchez, M.A.; Madrid, R.E. Potentiometric textile-based pH sensor. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2018, 260, 601–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Huang, Y.; Hu, H.; Hung, Y.; Zhu, M.; Meng, W.; Liu, C.; Pei, Z.; Hao, C.; Wang, Z.; Zhi, C. From industrially weavable and knittable highly conductive yarns to large wearable energy storage textiles. ACS Nano 2015, 9, 4766–4775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Guo, L.; Berglin, L. Test and evaluation of textile based stretch sensors. In Proceedings of the AUTEX World Textile Conference, Izmir, Turkey, 26–28 May 2009; p. 8. [Google Scholar]
  42. Scilingo, E.P.; Gemignani, A.; Paradiso, R.; Taccini, N.; Ghelarducci, B.; De Rossi, D. Performance evaluation of sensing fabrics for monitoring physiological and biomechanical variables. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 2005, 9, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Noury, N.; Dittmar, A.; Corroy, C.; Baghai, R.; Weber, J.L.; Blanc, D.; Klefstat, F.; Blinovska, A.; Vaysse, S.; Comet, B. VTAMN—A smart clothe for ambulatory remote monitoring of physiological parameters and activity. In Proceedings of the EMBC’04 26th Annual International Conference of The IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, San Francisco, CA, USA, 1–4 September 2004; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2004; pp. 3266–3269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ueng, T.H.; Cheng, K.B. Friction core-spun yarns for electrical properties of woven fabrics. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2001, 32, 1491–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ojuroye, O.; Torah, R.; Beeby, S. Modified PDMS packaging of sensory e-textile circuit microsystems for improved robustness with washing. Microsyst. Technol. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chen, J.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, N.; Zou, H.; Liu, R.; Tao, C.; Fan, X.; Wang, Z.L. Micro-cable structured textile for simultaneously harvesting solar and mechanical energy. Nat. Energy 2016, 1, 16138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Saravanja, B.; Malaric, K.; Pusic, T.; Ujevic, D. Impact of dry cleaning on the electromagnetic shield characteristics of interlining fabric. Fibres Text. East. Eur. 2015, 23, 104–108. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ramachandran, T.; Vigneswaran, C. Design and development of copper core conductive fabrics for smart textiles. J. Ind. Text. 2009, 39, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rattfalt, L.; Chedid, M.; Hult, P.; Linden, M.; Ask, P. Electrical properties of textile electrodes. In Proceedings of the EMBS’07 29th Annual International Conference of The IEEE Engineering Medicine and Biology Society, Lyon, France, 23–26 August 2007; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2007; pp. 5735–5738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kim, M.; Kim, H.; Park, J.; Jee, K.K.; Lim, J.A.; Park, M.C. Real-time sitting posture correction system based on highly durable and washable electronic textile pressure sensors. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2018, 269, 394–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zysset, C.; Kinkeldei, T.; Chenrenack, K.; Troster, G. Woven electronic textiles: An enabling technology for health-care monitoring in clothing. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, Copenhagen, Denmark, 26–29 September 2010; pp. 843–848. [Google Scholar]
  52. Park, S.; Jayaraman, S. Enhancing the quality of life through wearable technology. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag. 2003, 22, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Malmivaara, M. The emergence of wearable computing. In Smart Clothes and Wearable Technology; McCann, J., Bryson, B., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Ltd.: Cambridge, UK, 2009; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar]
  54. Martinez-Estrada, M.; Moradi, B.; Fernandez-Garcia, R.; Gil, I. Impact of conductive yarns on an embroidery textile moisture sensor. Sensors 2019, 19, 1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Martinez-Estrada, M.; Moradi, B.; Fernandez-Garcia, R.; Gil, I. Impact of manufacturing variability and washing on embroidery textile sensors. Sensors 2018, 18, 3824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Martinez-Estrada, M.; Moradi, B.; Fernandez-Garcia, R.; Gil, I. Embroidery Textile Moisture Sensor. In Proceedings of the Embroidery Textile Moisture Sensor, Eurosensors, Graz, Austria, 9–12 September 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jin, Y.; Boon, E.P.; Le, L.T.; Lee, W. Fabric-infused array of reduced graphene oxide sensors for mapping of skin temperatures. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2018, 280, 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Seesaard, T.; Lorwongtragool, P.; Kerdcharoen, T. Development of fabric-based chemical gas sensors for use as wearble electronic noses. Sensors 2015, 15, 1885–1902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Cho, G.; Jeong, K.; Paik, M.J.; Kwun, Y.; Sung, M. Performance evaluation of textile-based electrodes and motion sensors for smart clothing. IEEE Sens. J. 2011, 11, 3183–3193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zhou, Y.; Ding, X.; Zhang, J.; Duan, Y.; Hu, J.; Yang, X. Fabrication of conductive fabric as textile electrode for ECG monitoring. Fibers Polym. 2014, 15, 2260–2264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kaynak, A.; Foitzik, R.C. Methods of coating textiles with soluble conducting polymers. Res. J. Text. Appar. 2011, 15, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wang, H.; Xue, Y.; Lin, T. One-step vapour-phase formation of patternable, electrically conductive, superamphiphobic coatings on fibrous materials. Soft Matter 2011, 7, 8158–8161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Varesano, A.; Antognozzi, B.; Tonin, C. Electrically conducting-adhesive coating on polyamide fabrics. Synth. Met. 2010, 160, 1683–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Garg, S.; Hurren, C.; Kaynak, A. Improvement of adhesion of conductive polypyrrole coating on wool and polyester fabrics using atmospheric plasma treatment. Synth. Met. 2007, 157, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Wang, J.; Kaynak, A.; Wang, L.; Liu, X. Thermal conductivity studies on wool fabrics with conductive coatings. J. Text. Inst. 2006, 97, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Jiang, X.; Tessier, D.; Dao, L.H.; Zhang, Z. Biostability of electrically conductive polyester fabrics: An in vitro study. Off. J. Soc. Biomater. Jpn. Soc. Biomater. Aust. Soc. Biomater. Korean Soc. Biomater. 2002, 62, 507–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Jakubiec, B.; Marois, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Roy, R.; Sigot-Luizard, M.F.; Dugre, F.J.; King, M.W.; Dao, L.; Laroche, G.; Guidoin, R. In vitro cellular response to polypyrrole-coated woven polyester fabrics: Potential benefits of electrical conductivity. Off. J. Soc. Biomater. Aust. Soc. Biomater. 1998, 41, 519–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. De Rossi, D.; Della Santa, A.; Mazzoldi, A. Dressware: Wearable hardware. Mater. Sci. Eng. 1999, 7, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. De Rossi, D.; Carpi, F.; Lorussi, F.; Mazzoldi, A.; Scilingo, E.P.; Tognetti, A. Electroactive fabrics for distributed, conformable and interactive systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE Sensors, Orlando, FL, USA, 12–14 June 2002; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2002; pp. 1608–1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mazzoldi, A.; De Rossi, D.; Lorussi, F.; Scilingo, E.P.; Paradiso, R. Smart textiles for wearable motion capture systems. Assoc. Univ. Text. Res. J. 2002, 2, 199–203. [Google Scholar]
  71. Engin, F.Z.; Usta, I. Electromagnetic shielding effectiveness of polyester fabrics with polyaniline deposition. Text. Res. J. 2014, 84, 903–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Patil, A.J.; Deogaonkar, S.C. A novel method of in situ chemical polymerisation of polyaniline for synthesis of electrically conductive cotton fabrics. Text. Res. J. 2012, 82, 1517–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wu, B.; Zhang, B.; Wu, J.; Wang, Z.; Ma, H.; Yu, M.; Li, L.; Li, J. Electrical switchability and dry-wash durability of conductive textiles. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 11255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Verboven, I.; Stryckers, J.; Mecnika, V.; Vandevenne, G.; Josse, M.; Deferme, W. Printing smart designs of light emitting devices with maintained textile properties. Materials 2018, 11, 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Zhang, L.; Fairbanks, M.; Andrew, T.L. Rugged textile electrodes for wearable devices obtained by vapor coating off-the-shelf, plain-woven fabrics. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2017, 27, 1700415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wang, H.; Zhou, H.; Gestos, A.; Fang, J.; Niu, H.; Ding, J.; Lin, T. Robust, electro-conductive, self-healing, superamphiphobic fabric prepared by one-step vapour-phase polymerisation of poly (3, 4-ethylenedioxythiophene) in the presence of fluorinated decyl polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane and fluorinated alkyl silane. Soft Matter 2013, 9, 277–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Tadesse, M.G.; Loghin, C.; Chen, Y.; Wang, L.; Catalin, D.; Nierstrasz, V. Effect of liquid immersion of PEDOT: PSS-coated polyester fabric on surface resistance and wettability. Smart Mater. Struct. 2017, 26, 065016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Calvert, P.; Patra, P.; Lo, T.C.; Chen, C.H.; Sawhney, A.; Agrawal, A. Piezoresistive sensors for smart textiles. In Proceedings of the SPIE Smart Structures and Materials and Nondestructive Evaluation and Health Monitoring, San Diego, CA, USA, 18–22 March 2007; SPIE: Washington, DC, USA. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Liu, M.; Pu, X.; Jiang, C.; Liu, T.; Huang, X.; Chen, L.; Du, C.; Sun, J.; Hu, W.; Wang, Z.L. Large-area all-textile pressure sensors for monitoring human motion and physiological signals. Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1703700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Nafeie, N.; Montazer, M.; Nejad, N.H.; Harifi, T. Electrical conductivity of different carbon nanotubes on wool fabric: An investigation on the effects of different dispersing agents and pretreatments. Colloids Surf. A Physiochem. Eng. Asp. 2016, 497, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Motaghi, Z.; Shahidi, S. Effect of single wall and carboxylated single wall carbon nanotube on conduction properties of wool fabrics. J. Nat. Fibres 2015, 12, 388–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Makowski, T.; Kwowalczyk, D.; Fortuniak, W.; Jeziorska, D.; Brzezinkski, S.; Tracz, A. Superhydrophobic properties of cotton woven fabrics with conducting 3D networks of multiwall carbon nanotubes, MWCNTs. Cellulose 2014, 21, 4659–4670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Skrzetuska, E.; Puchalski, M.; Krucinska, I. Chemically driven printed textile sensors based on graphene and carbon nanotubes. Sensors 2014, 14, 16816–16828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Jost, K.; Perez, C.R.; McDonough, J.K.; Presser, V.; Heon, M.; Dion, G.; Gogotsi, Y. Carbon coated textiles for flexible energy storage. Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4, 5060–5067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Montazer, M.; Ghayem Asghari, M.S.; Pakdel, E. Electrical conductivity of single walled and multiwalled carbon nanotube containing wool fibres. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2011, 121, 3353–3358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hu, L.; Pasta, M.; La Mantia, F.; Cui, L.; Jeong, S.; Deshazer, H.D.; Choi, J.W.; Han, S.M.; Cui, Y. Stretchable, porous, and conductive energy textiles. Nano Lett. 2010, 10, 708–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Kowalczyk, D.; Brzezinkski, S.; Kaminska, I.; Wrobel, S.; Urszula, M.; Fortuniak, W.; Piorkowska, E.; Svyntkivska, M.; Makowski, T. Electrically conductive composite textiles modified with graphene using sol-gel method. J. Alloys Compd. 2019, 784, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Cao, J.; Wang, C. Highly conductive and flexible silk fabric via electrostatic self assemble between reduced graphene oxide and polyaniline. Org. Electron. 2018, 55, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Golparvar, A.J.; Yapici, M.K. Electrooculography by wearable graphene textiles. IEEE Sens. J. 2018, 18, 8971–8978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kale, R.D.; Potdar, T.; Kane, P.; Singh, R. Nanocomposite polyester fabric based on graphene/titanium dioxide for conducting and UV protection functionality. Graphene Technol. 2018, 3, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Schal, P.; Junger, I.J.; Grimmelsmann, N.; Ehrmann, A. Development of graphite-based conductive textile coatings. J. Coat. Technol. Res. 2018, 15, 875–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Carey, T.; Cacovich, S.; Divitini, G.; Ren, J.; Mansouri, A.; Kim, J.M.; Wang, C.; Ducati, C.; Sordan, R.; Torrisi, F. Fully inkjet-printed two dimensional material field-effect heterojunctions for wearable and textile electronics. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 1202–1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Chatterjee, A.; Kumar, M.N.; Maity, S. Influence of graphene oxide concentration and dipping cycles on electrical conductivity of coated cotton textiles. J. Text. Inst. 2017, 108, 1910–1916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Karim, N.; Afroj, S.; Tan, S.; He, P.; Fernado, A.; Carr, C.; Novoselov, K.S. Scalable production of graphene-based wearable e-textiles. Am. Chem. Soc. Nano 2017, 11, 12266–12275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Lou, C.; Wang, S.; Liang, T.; Pang, C.; Huang, L.; Run, M.; Liu, X. A graphene-based flexible pressure sensor with applications to plantar pressure measurement and gait analysis. Materials 2017, 10, 1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Gan, L.; Shang, S.; Yuen, C.W.M.; Jiang, S.X. Graphene nanoribbon coated flexible and conductive cotton fabric. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2015, 117, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ren, J.; Wang, C.; Zhang, X.; Carey, T.; Chen, K.; Yin, Y.; Torrisi, F. Environmentally-friendly conductive cotton fabric as flexible strain sensor based on hot press reduced graphene oxide. Carbon 2017, 111, 622–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Shirgholami, M.A.; Loghman, K.; Mirjalili, M. Multifunctional modification of wool fabric using graphene/TiO2 nanocomposite. Fibers Polym. 2016, 17, 220–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Gao, Z.; Song, N.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X. Cotton-textile-enabled, flexible lithium-ion batteries with enhanced capacity and extended lifespan. Nano Lett. 2015, 15, 8194–8203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Lu, Z.; Mao, C.; Zhang, H. Highly conductive graphene-coated silk fabricated via a repeated coated-reduction approach. J. Mater. Chem. C 2015, 3, 4265–4268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Molina, J.; Fernandez, J.; Fernandes, M.; Souto, A.P.; Esteves, M.F.; Bonastre, J.; Cases, F. Plasma treatment of polyester fabrics to increase the adhesion of reduced graphene oxide. Synth. Met. 2015, 202, 110–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sahito, I.A.; Sun, K.C.; Arbab, A.A.; Oadir, M.B.; Jeong, S.H. Graphene coated cotton fabric as textile structured counter electrode for DSSC. Electrochim. Acta 2015, 173, 164–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Molina, J.; Zille, A.; Fernandez, J.; Souto, A.P.; Bonastre, J.; Cases, F. Conducting fabrics of polyester coated with polypyrrole and doped with graphene oxide. Synth. Met. 2015, 204, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Yapici, M.K.; Alkhidir, T.; Samad, Y.A.; Liao, K. Graphene-clad textile electrodes for electrocardiogram monitoring. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2015, 221, 1469–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Javed, K.; Galib, C.M.A.; Yang, F.; Chen, C.M.; Wang, C. A new approach to fabricate graphene electro-conductive networks on natural fibres by ultraviolet curing method. Synth. Met. 2014, 193, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Karimi, L.; Yazdanshenas, M.E.; Khajavi, R.; Rashidi, A.; Mirjalili, M. Using graphene/TiO2 nanocomposite as a new route for preparation of electroconductive, self-cleaning, antibacterial and antifungal cotton fabric without toxicity. Cellulose 2014, 21, 3813–3827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Molina, J.; Fernandez, J.; Del Rio, A.I.; Bonastre, J.; Cases, F. Chemical and electrochemical study of fabrics coated with reduced graphene oxide. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2013, 279, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Molina, J.; Fernandez, J.; Ines, J.C.; Del Rio, A.I.; Bonastre, J.; Cases, F. Electrochemical characterisation of reduced graphene oxide-coated polyester fabrics. Electrochim. Acta 2013, 93, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Hu, X.; Tian, M.; Qu, L.; Zhu, S.; Han, G. Multifunctional cotton fabrics with graphene/polyurethane coatings with far-infrared emission, electrical conductivity, and ultraviolet-blocking properties. Carbon 2015, 95, 625–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Liu, W.; Yan, X.; Lang, J.; Peng, C.; Xue, Q. Flexible and conductive nanocomposite electrode based on graphene sheets and cotton cloth for supercapacitor. J. Mater. Chem. 2012, 22, 17245–17253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Fugetsu, B.; Sano, E.; Yu, H.; Mori, K.; Tanaka, T. Graphene oxide as dyestuffs for the creation of electrically conductive fabrics. Carbon 2010, 48, 3340–3345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Zhang, C.; Zhou, G.; Rao, W.; Fan, L.; Xu, W.; Xu, J. A simple method for fabricating nickel-coated cotton fabrics for wearable strain sensor. Cellulose 2018, 25, 4859–4870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Shakir, I.; Ali, Z.; Bae, J.; Park, J.; Kang, D.J. Layer by layer assembly of ultrathin V2O5 anchored MWCNTs and graphene on textile fabrics of high energy density flexible supercapacitor electrodes. Nanoscale 2014, 6, 4125–4130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Kim, Y.; Kim, H.; Yoo, H.J. Electrical characterisation of screen-printed circuits on the fabric. IEEE Trans. Adv. Packag. 2010, 33, 196–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Ali, A.; Nguen, N.H.A.; Baheti, V.; Ashraf, M.; Militky, J.; Mansoor, T.; Noman, M.T.; Ahmad, S. Electrical conductivity and physiological comfort of silver coated cotton fabrics. J. Text. Inst. 2017, 109, 620–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Rantanen, J.; Alfthan, N.; Impio, J.; Karinsalo, T.; Malmivaara, M.; Matala, R.; Makinen, M.; Reho, A.; Talvenmaa, P.; Tasanen, M.; et al. Smart clothing for the Arctic environment. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Wearable Computers, Atlanta, GA, USA, 16–17 October 2000; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2000; pp. 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Yu, Z.C.; He, H.L.; Zhang, J.F.; Lou, C.W.; Chen, A.P.; Lin, J.H. Functional properties and electromagnetic shielding behaviour of elastic warp-knitted fabrics. Fibres Text. East. Eur. 2015, 25, 78–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Metcalf, C.D.; Collie, S.; Cranny, A.W.; Hallett, G.; James, C.; Adams, J.; Chappell, P.H.; White, N.M.; Burridge, J.H. Fabric-based strain sensors for measuring movement in wearable telemonitoring applications. In Proceedings of the IET Conference on Assisted Living 2009, London, UK, 24–25 March 2009; Institution of Engineering and Technology: Hertfordshire, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Paradiso, R.; De Rossi, D. Advances in textile technologies for unobtrusive monitoring of vital parameters and movements. In Proceedings of the EMBS’06 28th Annual International Conference of The IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, New York, NY, USA, 23–26 August 2006; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 392–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Paradiso, R.; Loriga, G.; Taccini, N. A wearable health care system based on knitted integrated sensors. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 2005, 9, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Catrysse, M.; Puers, R.; Hertleer, C.; Van Langenhove, L.; van Egmond, H.; Matthys, D. Towards the integration of textile sensors in a wireless monitoring suit. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2004, 114, 302–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Matsouka, D.; Vassiliadis, S.; Tao, X.; Koncar, V.; Bahadir, S.K.; Kalaoglu, F.; Jevsnik, S. Electrical connection issues on wearable electronics. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Levos, Greece, 5–7 September 2018; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Atalay, O. Textile-based, interdigital, capacitive, soft-strain sensor for wearable applications. Materials 2018, 11, 768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Atalay, O.; Kennon, W.R. Knitted strain sensors: Impact of design parameters on sensing properties. Sensors 2014, 14, 4712–4730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Huang, C.T.; Shen, C.L.; Tang, C.F.; Chang, S.H. A wearable yarn-based piezoresistive sensor. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2008, 141, 396–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Varesano, A.; Tonin, C. Improving electrical performances of wool textiles: Synthesis of conducting polypyrrole on the fiber surface. Text. Res. J. 2008, 78, 1110–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Varesano, A.; Dall’Acqua, L.; Tonin, C. A study on the electrical conductivity decay of polypyrrole coated wool textiles. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2005, 89, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Seyedin, S.; Razal, J.M.; Innis, P.C.; Jeiranikhameneh, A.; Beirne, S.; Wallace, G.G. Knitted strain sensor textiles of highly conductive all-polymeric fibres. Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2015, 7, 21150–21158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Seyedin, S.; Moradi, S.; Singh, C.; Razal, J.M. Data on kilometer scale production of stretchable conductive multifilaments enables knitting wearable strain sensing textiles. Data Brief 2018, 18, 1765–1772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Seyedin, S.; Moradi, S.; Singh, C.; Razal, J.M. Continuous production of stretchable conductive multifilaments in kilometer scale enables facile knitting of wearable strain sensing textiles. Appl. Mater. Today 2018, 11, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Varnaite-Zuravliova, S.; Sankauskaite, A.; Stygiene, L.; Krauledas, S.; Bekampiene, P.; Milciene, I. The investigation of barrier and comfort properties of multifunctional coated conductive knitted fabrics. J. Ind. Text. 2016, 45, 585–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Jost, K.; Durkin, D.P.; Haverhals, L.M.; Brown, E.K.; Langenstein, M.; De Long, H.C.; Trulove, P.C.; Gogotsi, Y.; Dion, G. Natural fibre welded electrode yarns for knittable textile supercapacitors. Adv. Energy Mater. 2015, 5, 1401286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Han, J.W.; Kim, B.; Li, J.; Meyyappan, M. A carbon nanotube based ammonia sensor on cotton textiles. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2013, 102, 193104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Pacelli, M.; Caldani, L.; Paradiso, R. Performances evaluation of piezoresistive fabric sensors as function of yarn structure. In Proceedings of the EMBC’13 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Osaka, Japan, 3–7 July 2013; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 6205–6505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Afroj, S.; Karim, N.; Wang, Z.; Tan, S.; He, P.; Holwill, M.; Ghazaryan, D.; Fernando, A.; Novoselov, K.S. Engineering graphene flakes for wearable textile sensors via highly scalable and ultrafast yarn dyeing technique. ACS Nano 2019, 13, 3847–3857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Farringdon, J.; Moore, A.J.; Tilbury, N.; Church, J.; Biemond, P.D. Wearable sensor badge and sensor jacket for context awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Wearable Computers: Digest of Papers, San Francisco, CA, USA, 18–19 October 1999; IEEE Computer Society Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1999; pp. 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Babu, K.F.; Senthilkumar, R.; Noel, M.; Kulandainathan, M.A. Polypyrrole microstructure deposited by chemical and electrochemical methods on cotton fabrics. Synth. Mater. 2009, 159, 1353–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Kim, S.J.; Song, W.; Yi, Y.; Min, B.K.; Mondal, S.; An, K.S.; Choi, C.G. High durability and waterproofing rGO/SWCNT-fabric-based multifunctional sensors for human motion detection. Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 3921–3928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Lee, H.; Glasper, M.J.; Li, X.; Nychka, J.A.; Batcheller, J.; Chung, H.J.; Chen, Y. Preparation of fabric strain sensor based on graphene for human motion monitoring. J. Mater. Sci. 2018, 53, 9026–9033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Li, X.; Liu, R.; Xu, C.; Bai, Y.; Zhou, X.; Wang, Y.; Yuan, G. High performance polypyrrole/graphene/SnCl2 modified polyester textile electrodes and yarn electrodes for wearable energy storage. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2018, 28, 1800064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Souri, H.; Bhattacharya, D. Highly stretchable multifunctional wearable devices based on conductive cotton and wool fabrics. Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 20845–20853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Souri, H.; Bhattacharya, D. Highly sensitive, stretchable and wearable strain sensors using fragmented conductive cotton fabric. J. Mater. Chem. C 2018, 6, 10524–10531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Yin, F.; Yang, J.; Peng, H.; Yuan, W. Flexible and highly sensitive artificial electronic skin based on graphene/polyamide interlocking fabric. J. Mater. Chem. C 2018, 6, 6840–6846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Ouadil, B.; Cherkaoui, O.; Safi, M.; Zahouily, M. Surface modification of knit polyester fabric for mechanical, electrical and UV protection properties by coating with graphene oxide, graphene and graphene/silver nanoparticles. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2017, 414, 292–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Wu, W.; Zhang, H.; Ma, H.; Cao, J.; Jiang, L.; Chen, G. Functional finishing of viscose knitted fabrics via graphene coating. J. Eng. Fibres Fabr. 2017, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Nooralian, Z.; Gashti, M.P.; Ebrahimi, I. Fabrication of a multifunctional graphene/polyvinylphosphonic acid/cotton nanocomposite via facile spray layer-by-layer assembly. R. Soc. Chem. Adv. 2016, 6, 23288–23299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  147. Zhao, C.; Shu, K.; Wang, C.; Gambhir, S.; Wallace, G.C. Reduced graphene oxide and polypyrrole/reduced graphene oxide composite coated stretchable fabric electrodes for supercapacitor application. Electrochim. Acta 2015, 172, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  148. Karaguzel, B. Printing Conductive Inks on Nonwovens: Challenges and Opportunities. Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  149. Karaguzel, B.; Merritt, C.R.; Kang, T.; Wilson, J.M.; Nagle, H.T.; Grant, E.; Pourdeyhimi, B. Utility of nonwovens in the production of integrated electrical circuits via printing conductive inks. J. Text. Inst. 2008, 99, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Karaguzel, B.; Merritt, C.R.; Kang, T.; Wilson, J.M.; Nagle, H.T.; Grant, E.; Pourdeyhimi, B. Flexible, durable printed electrical circuits. J. Text. Inst. 2009, 100, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Qi, J.; Xu, X.; Liu, X.; Lau, K.T. Fabrication of textile based conductometric polyaniline gas sensor. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2014, 202, 732–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Wang, D.; Li, D.; Zhao, M.; Xu, Y.; Wei, Q. Multifunctional wearable smart device based on conductive reduced graphene oxide/polyester fabric. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2018, 454, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Du, D.; Li, P.; Ouyang, J. Graphene coated nonwoven fabrics as wearable sensors. J. Mater. Chem. C 2016, 4, 3224–3230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Woltornist, S.J.; Alamer, F.A.; McDannald, A.; Jain, M.; Sotzing, G.A.; Adamson, D.H. Preparation of conductive graphene/graphite infused fabrics using an interface trapping method. Carbon 2015, 81, 38–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Samad, Y.A.; Li, Y.; Alhassan, S.M.; Liao, K. Non-destroyable graphene cladding on a range of textile and other fibres and fibre mats. R. Soc. Chem. Adv. 2014, 4, 16935–16938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Liu, X.; Qin, Z.; Dou, Z.; Liu, N.; Chen, L.; Zhu, M. Fabricating conductive poly(ethylene terephthalate) nonwoven fabrics using an aqueous dispersion of reduced graphene oxide as a sheet dyestuff. R. Soc. Chem. Adv. 2014, 4, 23869–23875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Liu, F.; Wang, S.; Han, G.; Liu, R.; Chang, Y.; Xiao, Y. Multiwalled carbon nanotubes/polypyrrole/graphene/nonwoven fabric composites used as electrodes of electrochemical capacitor. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2014, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Yun, Y.J.; Hong, W.G.; Kim, W.J.; Jun, Y.; Kim, B.H. A novel method for applying reduced graphene oxide directly to electronic textiles from yarns to fabrics. Adv. Mater. 2013, 25, 5701–5705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Linz, T.; Kallmayer, C.; Aschenbrenner, R.; Reichl, H. Fully integrated EKG shirt based on embroidered electrical interconnections with conductive yarn and miniaturized flexible electronics. In Proceedings of the BSN’06 International Workshop on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks, Cambridge, MA, USA, 3–5 April 2006; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 26–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Li, B.; Xiao, G.; Qiao, Y.; Li, C.M.; Lu, Z. A flexible humidity sensor based on silk fabrics for human respiratory monitoring. J. Mater. Chem. C 2018, 6, 4549–4554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Chan, K.L.; Fawcett, D.; Poinern, G.E.J. Gold nanoparticle treated textile-based materials for potential use as wearable sensors. Int. J. Sci. 2016, 2, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Ankhili, A.; Tao, X.; Cochrane, C.; Koncar, V.; Coulon, D.; Tarlet, J. Ambulatory evaluation of ECG signal obtained using washable textile-based electrodes made with chemically modified PEDOT: PSS. Sensors 2019, 19, 416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Gong, F.; Meng, C.; He, J.; Dong, X. Fabrication of highly conductive and multifunctional polyester fabrics by spray-coating with PEDOT: PSS solutions. Prog. Org. Coat. 2018, 121, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Simard-Normandin, M.; Ho, Q.B.; Rahman, R.; Ferguson, S.; Manga, K. Resistivity-strain analysis of graphene-based ink coated fabrics for wearable electronics. In Proceedings of the Pan Pacific Microelectronics Symposium, Waimea, HI, USA, 5–8 February 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Lou, C.; Li, R.; Li, Z.; Liang, T.; Wei, Z.; Run, M.; Yan, X.; Liu, X. Flexible graphene electrodes for prolonged dynamic ECG monitoring. Sensors 2016, 16, 1833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Shateri-Khalilabad, M.; Yazdanshenas, M.E. Fabricating electroconductive cotton textiles using graphene. Carbohydr. Polym. 2013, 96, 190–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Shateri-Khalilabad, M.; Yazdanshenas, M.E. Preparation of superhydrophobic electroconductive graphene-coated cotton cellulose. Cellulose 2013, 20, 963–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Xu, J.; Wang, D.; Yuan, Y.; Wei, W.; Duan, L.; Wang, L.; Bao, H.; Xu, W. Polypyrrole/reduced graphene oxide coated fabric electrodes for supercapacitor application. Org. Electron. 2015, 24, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Xu, L.L.; Guo, M.X.; Liu, S.; Bian, S.W. Graphene/cotton composite fabrics as flexible electrode materials for electrochemical capacitors. R. Soc. Chem. Adv. 2015, 5, 25244–25249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Liu, Y.; Wang, X.; Qi, K.; Xin, J.H. Functionalisation of cotton with carbon nanotubes. J. Mater. Chem. 2008, 18, 3454–3460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Laing, R.M.; Wilson, S. Wool and cotton blends for the high-end apparel sector. In Proceedings of the ICNF 2017 3rd International Conference on Natural Fibres: Advanced Materials for a Greener World, Braga, Portugal, 21–23 June 2017; pp. 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Jost, K.; Stenger, D.; Perez, C.R.; McDonough, J.K.; Lian, K.; Gogotsi, Y.; Dion, G. Knitted and screen printed carbon-fibre supercapacitors for applications in wearable electronics. Energy Environ. Sci. 2013, 6, 2698–2705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Cheema, S.M.; Shah, T.H.; Anand, S.C.; Soin, N. Development and characterisation of nonwoven fabrics for apparel applications. J. Text. Sci. Eng. 2018, 8, 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Ajmeri, J.R.; Ajmeri, C.J. Developments in nonwovens as geotextiles. In Advances in Technical Nonwovens; Kellie, G., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2016; pp. 339–359. [Google Scholar]
  175. Morin, B.; Hennessy, J.; Arora, P. Developments in nonwovens as specialist membranes in batteries and supercapacitors. In Advances in Technical Nonwovens; Kellie, G., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2016; pp. 311–336. [Google Scholar]
  176. Mao, N. Nonwoven fabric filters. In Advances in Technical Nonwovens; Kellie, G., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2016; pp. 273–303. [Google Scholar]
  177. Andreoni, G.; Standoli, C.E.; Perego, P. Defining requirements and related methods for designing sensorised garments. Sensors 2016, 16, 769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Xiao, X.; Zarar, S. A wearable system for articulated human pose tracking under uncertainty of sensor placement. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, Enschede, The Netherlands, 26–29 August 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1144–1150. [Google Scholar]
  179. Li, Y.; Chopra, N. Progress in large scale production of graphene. Part 1: Chemical methods. J. Miner. Met. Mater. Soc. 2015, 67, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Zurutuza, A.; Marinelli, C. Challenges and opportunities in graphene commercialization. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2014, 9, 730–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Sahito, I.A.; Sun, K.C.; Arbab, A.A.; Qadir, M.B.; Jeong, H.S. Integrating high electrical conductivity and photocatalytic activity in cotton fabric by catonizing for enriched coating of negatively charged graphene oxide. Carbohydr. Polym. 2015, 130, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists. AATCC Encourages Education and Discussion on Wearable Technology and Electronic Textiles. Available online: https://www.aatcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/AATCC_Encourages_Education_and_Discussion_on_Wearable_Technology_and_Electronic_Textiles.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2018).
  183. British Standards Institution. Textiles and Textile Products—Electrically Conductive Textiles—Determination of the Linear Electrical Resistance of Conductive Tracks; BS EN 16812:2016; British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  184. Kaynak, A. Conductive polymer coatings. In Active Coatings for Smart Textiles; Hu, J., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2016; pp. 113–136. [Google Scholar]
  185. American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test Method for Stiffness of Fabrics; ASTM D1388-e1:2014; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  186. American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test Methods for DC Resistance or Conductance of Insulating Materials; ASTM D257:2007; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  187. American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists. Electrical Surface Resistivity of Fabrics; AATCC TM76:2011; American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists: Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  188. British Standards Institution. Protective Clothing—Electrostatic Properties—Test Method for Measurement; BS EN 1149-1:2006; British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  189. British Standards Institution. Protective Clothing—Electrostatic Properties—Test Method for Measurement of the Electrical Reistance through a Material (Vertical Resistance); BS EN 1149-2:1997; British Standards Institution: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  190. British Standards Institution. Textiles and Textile Products. Smart textiles. Definitions, Categorisation, Applications and Standardization Needs; PD CEN/TR 16298:2011; British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  191. Ali, S.; Hassan, A.; Hassan, G.; Bae, J.; Lee, C.H. All-printed humidity sensor based graphene/methyl-red composite with high sensitivity. Carbon 2016, 105, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Yoon, H.J.; Yang, J.H.; Zhou, Z.; Yang, S.S.; Cheng, M.M.C. Carbon dioxide gas sensor using a graphene sheet. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2011, 157, 310–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Yang, J.; Wei, D.; Tang, L.; Song, X.; Luo, W.; Chu, J.; Gao, T.; Shi, H.; Du, C. Wearable temperature sensor based on graphene nanowalls. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 25609–25615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Havenith, G. Interaction of clothing and thermoregulation. Exog. Dermatol. 2002, 1, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Oglakcioglu, N.; Marmarali, A. Thermal comfort properties of some knitted structures. Fibres Text. East. Eur. 2007, 156, 94–96. [Google Scholar]
  196. Holcombe, B.V. The thermal insulation performance of textile fabrics. Wool Sci. Rev. 1984, 60, 12–22. [Google Scholar]
  197. Laing, R.M.; MacRae, B.A.; Wilson, C.A.; Niven, B.E. Layering of fabrics in laboratory tests to reflect combinations as outdoor apparel. Text. Res. J. 2011, 81, 1828–1842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. International Organization for Standardization. Textiles—Physiological Effects—Measurement of Thermal and Water-Vapour Resistance under Steady-State Conditions (Sweating Guarded-Hotplate Test); ISO 11092:2014; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  199. British Standards Institution. Specification for Water Vapour Permeable Apparel Fabrics; BS 7209:1990; British Standards Institution: London, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  200. Kirk, J.W.; Ibrahim, S.M. Fundamental relationship of fabric extensibility to anthropometric requirements and garment performance. Text. Res. J. 1966, 36, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Kisilak, D. A new method of evaluating spherical fabric deformation. Text. Res. J. 1999, 69, 908–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Sular, V.; Seki, Y. A review on fabric bagging: The concept and measurement methods. J. Text. Inst. 2018, 109, 466–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Smuts, S.; Hunter, L. The effect of wool fibre properties on fabric mechanical properties important in the making-up performance of worsted fabrics. In Proceedings of the 9th International Wool Textile Research Conference, Biella, Italy, 28 June–5 July 1995; pp. 57–65. [Google Scholar]
  204. Stevens, D.; Mahar, T.J. The beneficial effects of low fibre crimp in worsted processing and on fabric properties and fabric handle. In Proceedings of the 9th International Wool Textile Research Conference, Biella, Italy, 28 June–5 July 1995; pp. 134–142. [Google Scholar]
  205. Baird, M.; Laird, W.; Weedall, P. Effect of yarn twist on the dimensional stability and tailorability of light weight worsted fabrics. In Proceedings of the 9th International Wool Textile Research Conference, Biella, Italy, 28 June–5 July 1995; pp. 78–86. [Google Scholar]
  206. Wuliji, T.; Endo, T.; Land, J.T.J.; Andrews, T.L.; Dodds, K.G. Evaluation of New Zealand low and high crimp merino wools. II. Wool characteristics and processing performance of knitwear and woven fabrics. In Proceedings of the 9th International Wool Textile Research Conference, Biella, Italy, 28 June–5 July 1995; pp. 150–158. [Google Scholar]
  207. International Organization for Standardization. Textiles—Tests for Colour Fastness—Part X12: Colour Fastness to Rubbing; ISO 105-X12:2016; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  208. Kaynak, A.; Rintoul, L.; George, G.A. Change of mechanical and electrical properties of polypyrrole films with dopant concentration and oxidative aging. Mater. Res. Bull. 2000, 35, 813–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Boucher, J.; Friot, D. Primary Microplastics in the Oceans: A Global Evaluation of Sources; International Union for Conservation of Nature: Gland, Switzerland, 2017; p. 43. [Google Scholar]
  210. De Falco, F.; Gullo, M.G.; Gentile, G.; Di Pace, E.; Cocca, M.; Gelabert, L.; Brouta-Agnesa, M.; Rovira, A.; Escudero, R.; Villalba, R.; et al. Evaluation of microplastic release caused by textile washing processes of synthetic fabrics. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 236, 916–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  211. Rochman, C.M.; Tahir, A.; Williams, S.L.; Baxa, D.V.; Lam, R.; Miller, J.T.; Teh, F.C.; Werorilangi, S.; Teh, S.J. Anthropogenic debris in seafood: Plastic debris and fibres from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 14340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Russell, I.M. Sustainable wool production and processing. In Sustainable Textiles: Life Cycle and Environmental Impact; Blackburn, R., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing Ltd.: Cambridge, UK, 2009; pp. 63–85. [Google Scholar]
  213. Fletcher, K.; Grose, L.; Hawken, P. Fashion and Sustainability: Design for Change; Laurence King: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  214. Sandin, G.; Roos, S.; Johansson, M. Environmental impact of textile fibers—What we know and what we don’t know. In The Fiber Bible Part 2; RISE AB; Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research: Lindholmspiren, Goteborg, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  215. Khan, S.; Nadir, D.; Shah, Z.U.; Shah, A.A.; Karunarathna, S.C.; Xu, J.; Khan, A.; Hasan, F. Biodegradation of polyester polyurethane by Aspergillus tubingensis. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 225, 469–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  216. Yoshida, S.; Hiraga, K.; Takehana, T.; Tangiguchi, L.; Yamaji, H.; Maeda, Y.; Toyohara, K.; Miyamoto, K.; Kimura, Y.; Oda, K. A bacterium that degrades and assimilates poly (ethylene terephthalate). Science 2016, 351, 1196–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  217. Kundungal, H.; Ganarapu, M.; Sarangapani, S.; Patchalyappan, A.; Devlpriya, S.P. Efficient biodegradation of polyethylene (HDPE) waste by plastic-eating lesser waxworn (Achroia grisella). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 18509–18519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Kohler, A.R. Challenges for eco-design of emerging technologies: The case of electronic textiles. Mater. Des. 2013, 51, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. van der Velden, N.M.; Kuusk, K.; Kohler, A.R. Life cycle assessment and eco-design of smart textiles: The importance of material selection demonstrated through e-textile product redesign. Mater. Des. 2015, 84, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Kohler, A.R.; Hilty, L.M.; Bakker, C. Prospective impacts of electronic textiles on recycling and disposal. J. Ind. Ecol. 2011, 15, 496–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Kohler, A.R.; Lauterbach, C.; Steinhage, A.; Buiter, J.C.; Techmer, A. Life cycle assessment and eco-design of a textile-based large-area sensor system. In Proceedings of the Electronics Goes Green, Berlin, Germany, 9–12 September 2012; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  222. Yasin, S.; Sun, D. Propelling textile waste to ascend the ladder of sustainability: EOL study on probing environmental parity in technical textiles. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 1451–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Investigations on producing functionalized fabrics. († not sufficiently defined, unspecified; * description unclear.).
Table 1. Investigations on producing functionalized fabrics. († not sufficiently defined, unspecified; * description unclear.).
Fabric Construction/Treatment ReferenceFabric Structure and Fiber ContentFunctionalizing MaterialFunction
Woven
Constructed in Fabric
Stainless Steel
[39]•woven †•100% surgical stainless-steel mesh•pH sensor
[40] •woven †•316 L stainless-steel filaments twisted, treated with polypyrrole, manganese dioxide, reduced graphene oxide•energy storage
[41]•plain woven, polyamide/Lycra®•Bekintex 50/2; Beag EA1088•stretch sensor
[42] •double face tubular intarsia•stainless steel twisted around continuous viscose yarn•physiological/biochemical sensor
[43]•woven cotton †•stainless steel covered with silk•ambulatory monitoring of physiological parameters
[44] (all values described in the article)•4-end 2/2 twill
11.42 warp/10 mm to 13.78 warp/10 mm (29 ends/inch to 35 ends/inch); 11.81 weft/10 mm to 24.41 weft/10 mm (30 picks/inch to 62 picks/inch); mass ~114 g/m2 to ~520 g/m2; linear density 39.4 tex/1 to 163.2 tex/1		•open-end friction core-spun yarns
stainless-steel filament, stainless-steel staple/polyester staple each used as cover and core, two ply yarn; stainless-steel filament core, stainless-steel staple/rayon staple cover; 100% stainless-steel staple yarn		•shielding home electronics, electrical appliances, cellular phones, digital devices
Copper
[45]•woven silk, hand loom †•copper polyamide substrate connected to touch sensor encapsulated with polydimethylsiloxane •e-textile applications †
[46]•plain, twill, satin•polybutylene terephthalate polymer wire coated with copper•harvest solar and mechanical energy
[47]•woven †•100% polyamide filament coated with copper in warp and weft, 52 ± 5 g/m2•electromagnetic shield
[48]•plain woven, 100% cotton•DREF-3 friction spun 38 standard wire gauge copper filament core and MCU-5 cotton fiber cover in ratio of 67/33, 80/20, 90/10; warp and weft, one just weft•electromagnetic shield, mobile phone charging, body temperature sensor
[49]•woven †•Swiss Shield CUPES-L 54 nm (18.5 tex) core polyester fibers, monofilament silver-plated copper cover•electrodes to monitor heart rate
Silver
[39]•woven •argon mesh 100% nylon, 55% silver treated, ripstop 100% silver-coated nylon•pH sensor
Nickel
[50]•woven, knitting wool *•nickel/titanium filament covered with polyurethane•sitting posture correction
Conductive Yarn
[51]•woven (textile yarns), conductive yarn warp, plastic fibers weft, inserted in cotton undershirt †•conductive yarn; plastic fibers with electrical components, i.e., circuits; temperature-sensitive chip, silicon based•temperature sensor for healthcare
[10,52,53]•woven in upper body garment †•optic fiber sensors•monitor vital signs †
Embroidery
[54]•100% cotton
thickness 0.43 mm †		Shieldtex® 117/17 dtex 2-ply silver-plated polyamide
Bekaert® yarn 80% polyester/20% stainless steel, 80% cotton/20% stainless steel		•moisture sensor
[55,56]•100% cotton
thickness 0.43 mm †		•Shieldtex® silver-plated polyamide yarn (140/17 dtex)•moisture sensor
[57]•100% polyester †•reduced graphene oxide-coated nylon filaments, silver threads•skin temperature sensor
[58]•satin, 100% cotton•conductive thread with drop coating of polymers (polyvinyl chloride, cumene terminated polystyrene-co-maleic anhydride, poly (styrene-co-maleic acid) partial isobutyl/methyl mixed ester, polyvinylpyrrolidone) and single-walled carbon nanotubes•gas sensor
[59]•plain woven, 100% cotton
20 warp/10 mm, 22 weft/10 mm (100 warp × 110 weft per 5 cm × 5 cm), mass 154.9 g/m2, thickness 0.39 mm;
plain woven, 50% stainless steel/50% cotton 11.4 wales/10 mm, 9.8 courses/10 mm (57 wales × 49 courses per 5 cm/5 cm), mass 155.0 g/m2, thickness 0.44 mm		•100% stainless-steel yarn (100 f/2)•motion sensor, electrodes
[43]•woven, 100% cotton †•stainless steel covered with silk•physiological parameters †
[35]•woven †•Bekinox® BK 50/2 polyester/steel staple fibers; VN 140 nylon/35”3 (nylon core stainless-steel cover); Bekintex 100% stainless-steel filament; Bekintex 15/2 100% stainless-steel spun filament; metal clad cover (silver, nickel, copper, gold, tin), aramid core (Kevlar®)•textile-based computing †
Chemical Treatment
Polypyrrole
[60]•plain woven, 100% cotton
scoured, 52 warp/10 mm, 28 weft/10 mm (cm), mass 112 g/m2		•sequential chemical and electrochemical polymerization•electrocardiogram sensor
[61]•woven, 100% wool †•solution, vapor, spray polymerization, brush coating•electrically conductive textile †
[62]•plain woven, 100% polyester•vapor-phase polymerization in the presence of fluorinated alkyl silane•multifunctional protective clothing and electronic textiles †
[63]•woven, Nylon 66 DuPont® Type 200
mass 124 g/m2 †		•immersion•electrically conductive textile †
[64]•2/1 twill, 100% wool
mass 228 g/m2
plain woven, 100% polyester
mass 212 g/m2		•solution polymerization•electrically conductive textile †
[65] •pinstripe twill, 100% wool
32 warp/10 mm, 30 weft/10 mm (cm), mass 216 g/m2, thickness 0.48 mm;
plain weave, 100% worsted wool, 30 warp/10 mm, 23 weft/10 mm (cm), mass 226.61 g/m2, thickness 0.89 mm		•chemical polymerization, physical vapor deposition•electrically conductive textile †
[66]•woven, 100% polyester †•surface polymerization•electrical stimulation to cells, biostability
[67]•2/2 twill, 100% polyester 27.56 warp/10 mm (70 ends/inch), 21.65 weft/10 mm (55 picks/inch)•polymerization in the presence of sulfosalicyclic acid•electrically conductive textile †
[68,69,70]•100% Lycra®•polymerization (with carbon filled rubber)•posture, gesture, body kinematics
Polyaniline
[71]•plain woven, 100% polyester
29 weft/10 mm, 35 warp/10 mm (cm), mass 123 g/m2, nondyed, yarn linear density weft 167 dtex 48 filaments, warp 77 dtex 40 filaments		•chemical polymerization•electromagnetic shield
[72]•woven, 100% cotton, scoured, bleached, mercerized
mass 130 g/m2, 1100 mm × 70 mm †		•immersion in solution, pressed through rollers•static protection and sensors for smart textiles
[73]•plain weave, 100% cotton•connected with gamma ray irradiation-induced grafting polymerization•multifunctional fabric for harsh or sensitive conditions
Poly (3,4-Ethylenedioxythiophene)
[74]•woven, 100% polyester †•layer stack: silver, barium titanate, zinc oxide, poly(3,4-ethylenedioxy-thiophene) poly(styrenesulfonate) with screen printing; polyurethane/acrylate, silver, poly(3,4-ethylenedio-xythiophene) poly(styrenesulfonate) •light-emitting device
[75]•plain woven: five cotton; three linen; two silk; one wool gauze; one bamboo rayon fabric; two bast fiber (pineapple, banana)•vapor deposition•electrically conductive textile circuit components of smart textiles †
[76]•plain woven, 100% polyester
mass 168 g/m2		•vapor-phase polymerization •smart fabrics †
[77]•plain woven, 100% polyester
30 warp/10 mm, 22 weft/10 mm, mass 158 g/m2		•laboratory coating machine, dry, anneal vacuum and air condition; immersion, cure•wireless communication for healthcare
[78]•cloth fabric †•printed•strain sensor, knee, wrist rehabilitation
Carbon nanotubes
[79]•woven, 100% cotton †•dipped in solution•pressure sensor
[80]•twill, 100% wool
washed with nonionic detergent, 18 warp/10 mm, 16 weft/10 mm (cm)		•impregnating bath•electrically conductive textile †
[81] •plain woven, 100% wool
scoured, mass 67.6 g/m2, density 22.2 dtex of 36 filaments, fineness 21.5 µm, length 65 mm		•ultrasonic bath•static dissipation, anti-spark, electromagnetic shielding, heating
[82] •plain woven, 100% cotton
pre-purified/washed, 29.5 warp/10 mm, 20.5 weft/10 mm (cm), mass 145 ± 7 g/m2, thickness 0.36 mm, yarn density 25 tex		•horizontal double-roll padding•electrically conductive superhydrophobic fabric †
[83]•twill, 100% cotton
mass 206.3 g/m3, thickness 0.41 mm, density 503.17 kg/m3		•screen printing with automatic squeegee, MS-300FRO•chemical vapor sensor
[84]•plain woven, 100% cotton•dip coating, screen printing•energy storage
[85]•twill, 100% wool
scoured, 16 warp/10 mm, 18 weft/10 mm (cm), mass 350 g/m2, fineness 30 Nm		•impregnating bath•electrically conductive fabric †
[86]•woven, 100% cotton †•dipped in solution•wearable electronic, energy storage
[41]•plain woven, polyamide/Lycra® †•coated•stretch sensor
Reduced Graphene Oxide
[87]•plain woven, 100% poly (ethylene terephthalate)
39 warp/10 mm (390 threads/10 cm), 32 weft/10 mm (320 threads/10 cm), mass 89 g/m2, thickness 0.19 mm, warp 84 dtex f48, weft 150 dtex
plain woven, 100% polypropylene 46 warp/10 mm (460 threads/10 cm), 33 weft/10 mm (330 threads/10 cm), mass 72 g/m2, thickness 0.19 mm, yarn 84 dtex f33		•roll padding in graphene oxide•electrically conductive textile †
[88]•crepe de chine, 100% silk
cleaned with sodium carbonate		•dip, dry, reduction•medical care, electron device †
[89]•woven, 100% nylon, 100% cotton, 100% polyester †•immersion in graphene oxide, reduction•electrooculography
[90]•plain woven, 100% polyester, 70 g/m2•immersion in graphene oxide, reduction and nanotitanium dioxide nucleation•electroconductive, antistatic, UV protective fabric
[91]•woven, 100% cotton, linen, viscose, polyester
warp/10 mm 30, 24, 26, 40; weft/10 mm (cm) 22, 40, 24, 50; mass 94 g/m2, 67 g/m2, 141 g/m2, 68 g/m2; thickness 0.32 mm, 0.17 mm, 0.34 mm, 0.11 mm, respectively †		•graphite and polyurethane coating applied with doctor’s knife•electrically conductive fabric †
[92]•100% polyester †•ink jet printing•wearable textile electronic circuits †
[93]•100% cotton
25.98 warp/10 mm (66 ends/inch), 22.83 weft/10 mm (58 picks/inch), mass 140 g/m2, thickness 0.41 mm, warp 28sNe, weft 19sNe †		•immersion in graphene oxide, reduction•electrically conductive fabric †
[94]•3/1 twill, 100% cotton•continuous pad drying•e-textiles †
[95]•plain woven, 100% polyester
43 yarns/10 mm, (110 yarns/inch), thickness 0.22 mm		•immersion in graphene oxide, reduction•plantar pressure sensor, gait analysis
[96]•woven, 100% cotton
12.99 warp/10 mm (33 warp/inch), 25.20 weft/10 mm (64 weft/inch), thickness 1 mm †		•dipped in graphene nanoribbons (unzipped multiwalled carbon nanotubes)•potential for strain sensor, conductive textiles
[97]•100% cotton
40 × 40 yarn, 130 g/m2 †		•graphene oxide with vacuum filtration, thermally reduced•strain sensor
[98]•plain woven, 100% wool
mass 170 g/m2		•immersion in graphene oxide and titanium dioxide, reduction•electrically conductive textile †
[99]•cotton t-shirt nickel nitrate treated †•immersion in graphene oxide•energy storage
[100]•woven (plain based on image), 100% silk †•immersion in graphene oxide, reduction•electrically conductive fabric †
[101]•woven, 100% polyester
plasma treatment, 55 warp/10 mm, 29 weft/10 mm (cm), mass 100 g/m2 †		•immersion in graphene oxide, reduction•electrically conductive fabric †
[102]•woven, 100% cotton (ISO 105/F standard fabric),
35 warp/10 mm, 31 weft/10 mm (cm), mass 115 g/m2		•immersion in graphene oxide, reduction•counter electrode
[103]•woven, 100% polyester
55 warp/10 mm, 29 weft/10 mm (cm), mass 100 g/m2		•immersion in graphene oxide and polypyrrole solution•electrically conductive fabric †
[104]•plain woven, 100% polyamide•immersion•electrocardiogram
[105]•plain woven, 100% wool
mass 300 g/m2, worsted yarn
plain woven, 100% cotton
mass 141 g/m2		•graphene oxide painted on fabric, reduction•e-textiles (e.g., glove to operate smart devices)
[106]•plain woven, 100% cotton
30 warp/10 mm, 28 weft/10 mm (cm), mass 102 g/m2, 16.3 tex		•immersed in graphene oxide, titanium dioxide, reduction•multifunctional fabric †
[107,108]•100% polyester
20 warp/10 mm, 60 weft/10 mm (cm), mass 140 g/m2, linear density warp 167 dtex, weft 500 dtex, fiber diameter 17 µm †		•immersion in graphene oxide, reduction•electrically conductive fabric †
[109]•plain woven, 100% cotton
mass 190 g/m2		•pad-dry-cure of graphene nanoplate and waterborne anionic aliphatic polyurethane composite•multifunctional fabric †
[110]•twill, 100% cotton
thickness 300 mm, yarn thickness 100 mm *		•graphene oxide painted on the fabric, reduction•supercapacitor
[111]•woven, 100% polyarylate
yarn 22.9 cN/dtex †		•dyed in graphene oxide, reduction•electrically conductive fabric †
Nickel
[112]•plain woven, 100% cotton
mass 182 g/m2		•immersion•strain sensor
[113]•woven textile fiber fabric, 100% polyester †•electroless plating of copper, nickel, silver and a layer of multiwalled carbon nanotubes•supercapacitor
Copper
[59]•plain woven, 100% nylon
polyurethane laminated or dry-coated 15 mm × 30 mm2		•sputtering copper, 2 µm•motion sensor, electrodes
[59]•ripstop (warp 50 d/36 f, weft 75 d/54 f, 0.12 mm, 111.8 g/m2) and mesh (monofilament 50 µm, 0.08 mm, 30.0 g/m2)•electroless plating of copper and nickel (2 µm)•motion sensor, electrodes
Silver
[114]fiber content (100%) †yarn/10 mm
(thread/10−1 m)		yarn (tex) •screen printing, sputtering•circuit including capacitor sensor input, controller system-on-a-chip, light emitting diode
cotton
viscose
silk
wool
polyester		21.1
47.9
49.3
31.2
21.0
30.0
50.0		211
479
493
312
210
300
500		20.0
21.0
8.0
43.0
5.5
5.5
4.4
[115]•plain weave, 100% cotton
160 g/m2		•immersion •hygienic jacket for X-ray use, electromagnetic shielding
Knit
Constructed in Fabric
Stainless Steel
[40]•knit †•316 L stainless-steel fiber in yarns; polypyrrole, manganese dioxide, reduced graphene oxide•energy storage
[116]•warp knit net, tetra-channel polyester•metal clad aramid fibers for signal conductors•thermal survival smart clothing for Arctic environment
[117]•warp knit•stainless-steel wire, 150d/144f antibacterial nylon, 75d/48f crisscross-section polyester filaments as core, Z-direction cover, and S-direction cover, respectively•electromagnetic shield
[59]•single jersey, 50% cotton/50% stainless steel
11.44 wales/10 mm, 9.8 courses/10 mm (57 wales × 49 courses per 5 cm/5 cm), mass 155.0 g/m2, thickness 0.44 mm		•stainless steel•motion sensor, electrodes
[41]•1 × 1 rib, polyamide/polyester †•Bekintex 50/2; Shieldtex® 235/1 × 2 •stretch sensor
[118] •single jersey, 100% wool
knee garment		•stainless steel; silver-coated nylon; Europa gill 40% polyester/40% copper sulfides/20% stainless steel•strain sensor
[49]•plain knit; wave knit *•Beakart Bekinox®VN (500 tex/f275/2) 100% stainless-steel yarn; Beakart Bekitex BK 50/2 (40 tex), 20% stainless steel/80% polyester•electrical electrodes to monitor heart rate
[119] •intarsia knit, Meryl® Skinlife fiber produced by Nylstar base, Lycra®•electrodes: Bekinox® VS stretch-broken sliver 100% stainless steel; Belltron® 9R1 polyamide core, carbon cover; conductive elastomer: silicon rubber graphite mixture•vital parameters, movement †
[120] •tubular intarsia knit, 100% viscose•two stainless-steel wires twisted around viscose yarn•cardiovascular diseases
[121]•’Textrodes’ †•stainless-steel electrodes•monitoring suit †
Silver
[122]•single jersey, 100% Nomex®•silver-coated polyamide (Shieldtex® 234/34-2 ply HC, 234 dtex, 32 filaments), encapsulated in thermoplastic polyurethane film•potential sensors, actuators, power, microprocessors, data transmission,
[123]•knit †•Shieldtex® MedTex P130, cured in Ecoflex® 30 (silicone); interdigital sensor area carved with burning•strain sensor
[124]•core spun Lycra® 800 dtex, 570 dtex, 156 dtex with nylon core, three variations of knit•silver-coated nylon•strain sensor
Polymers
[116]•warp knit net, tetra-channel polyester•carbon conductive weave for temperature sensors/control•thermal survival smart clothing for Arctic environment
[125]•crochet knit *•carbon-coated fiber (RESISTAT F901) single and double wrapped around rubber (Φ0.5 mm) and polyester (333 dtex) core•piezoresistive sensor
[126]•knit, 100% chlorine-Hercosett® (Hercules) merino wool
1.3 mm tex, treated fibers in slivers, spun in yarn †		•polypyrrole-treated fibers•apparel for static dissipation, anti-spark, electromagneticinterference shielding
[127]•knit, 100% wool †•polypyrrole chemical oxidative polymerization of fibers•electrically conductive fabric †
[128]•single-, double-, four-ply knit of Spandex (40 denier) or polyester (100 denier)•polyurethane/poly (3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene): poly(styrenesulfonate) fibers•strain sensor
[129,130]•plain-knit, co-knit, co-knit alternative, co-knit with conductive stitch, plain knit with nonconductive stitch; polyester (70 denier/50 filament) for co-knit•polyurethane/poly (3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene): poly(styrenesulfonate) multifilaments•strain sensor
Carbon nanotubes
[131] •three-layered weft-knit
20 courses/10 mm 12 wales/10 mm (cm); different inner, middle, outer layer, and yarn content (details provided in paper)		•polyester yarn with carbon core; 80% polyester/20% stainless steel•multifunctional wearable fabric †
[132]•knit with flat-bed machine, two rows separated by two rows of nonconductive yarns•activated carbon in swelled cellulose yarn of linen, bamboo, viscose (cotton could not be knitted)•supercapacitor
[133]•’ordinary textile’, 100% cotton (image appears to be woven) †•carbon nanotubes treated yarn•ammonia sensor
[134]•knit, 75% electro-conductive yarn/25% Lycra® †•Belltron®•piezoresistive sensor
Graphene
[135]•interlock, 100% cotton•yarns batched dyed followed by integration in interlock structure•temperature sensor
Not described
[136]•knit strips (10 mm wide, 10 m length); knit conductive tracking *•conductive threads•context awareness †
Chemical treatment
Polypyrrole
[137]•interlock, 100% polyester
mass 106 g/m2 (100 mm × 50 mm)		•vapor polymerization•electrically conductive fabric †
Reduced graphene oxide
[138]•100% cotton (image shows knit) †•immersion in graphene oxide, reduction, immersion in single-walled carbon nanotubes•motion sensor
[139]•weft knit, 90% nylon/10% spandex
12 wales/10 mm, 26 courses/10 mm (cm), mass 99.5 g/m2		•immersion in graphene oxide, reduction•strain sensor
[140]•100% polyester (diagram shows knit) †•immersion in reduced graphene oxide, variation with polypyrrole•energy storage
[141,142]•weft knit, 100% cotton
mass ≈220 g/m2, thickness 0.55 ± 0.05 mm, yarn diameter ≈223.9 ± 27.4 μm, measured fiber diameter ≈15.1 ± 0.8 μm
weft knit, 100% wool, mass ≈380 g/m2, thickness ≈0.7 ± 0.06 mm, yarn diameter ≈509.7 ± 34.1 μm, fiber diameter ≈49.8 ± 4.6 μm		•immersion in ultrasonication bath•strain sensor
[143]•interlock, 100% polyamide•immersion, reduction•sensitive artificial skin
[93] •knit, 100% cotton, 12.60 wales/10 mm (32 wales/inch), 22.83 courses/10 mm (58 courses/inch), mass 140 g/m2, thickness 0.58 mm, yarn count 30sNe, loop length 2.72 cm•immersion in graphene oxide followed by reduction reaction•electrically conductive fabric †
[144]•knit, 100% polyester
ammonia treated mass 100 g/m2 †		•immersion in graphene oxide, reduction, variation with silver nanoparticles with immersion•may be used for supercapacitors, sensors, solar cells
[145]•knit, 100% viscose
21 wales/10 mm, 15 courses/10 mm (109 wales/5 cm, 75 course/5 cm) †		•multicycle dipping‒drying graphene oxide, reduction•potential energy storage
[146]•plain knit, 100% cotton *•spray coating layer by layer assembly•multifunctional (UV protection, electrical conductivity, electromagnetic shielding)
[147]•knit, 100% nylon Lycra® †•immersion in graphene oxide, reduction, polypyrrole polymerization•supercapacitor
Nonwoven
Silver
[148,149,150]•Freudenberg’s Evolon® (polyester and nylon); BBA FiberWeb’s Resolution Print Media (trilobal polyester); DuPont’s Tyvek® (polyethylene)•screen printed•flexible circuit boards
Polyaniline
[151]•polypropylene †•immersion•gas sensor
Reduced graphene oxide
[152]•polyester
mass 40 g/m2		•suction filtration with graphene oxide dispersion, reduction•multifunctional wearable smart device †
[153]•nonwoven †•immersion and reduction•strain sensor
[154]•poly (ethyleneterephthalate) simulated leather †•immersion and sonication•smart textile †
[155]•mat, aramid (Kevlar®), polyester, cotton, nylon †•layering• wearable electronic devices †, energy harvesting
[156]•poly (ethylene terephthalate) †•dyed•heating elements
[157]•nonwoven †•immersion in graphene oxide, reduction; some additionally immersion in polypyrrole and multiwalled carbon nanotubes•capacitor
[158]•nylon-6 †•electrospinning and wrapped around nylon nanofibers in plane of random orientation •conductive wires and functional fabrics in wearable electronics †
Fabric structure not described
Silver
[159]•commercially available tight fitting stretch T-shirt, 100% polyamide †•zig-zag embroidered•electrocardiogram
Nickel
[160]•100% silk †•electroless plating•humidity sensor
Gold
[161]•100% cotton, silk, wool, polyester; 60% cotton/40% polyester, 60% wool/40% polyester, 50% wool/50% viscose, 10% wool/90%viscose †•droplet deposition, immersion•chemical sensor
Poly (3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)
[162]•polyamide/Lycra®
density 63 g/m2; thickness 294 µm †		•immersion•electrocardiogram
[163]•100% polyester †•spray coating•capacitor, heating/electronic devices
Polypyrrole
[137]•scoured and bleached cotton †•electrochemical and chemical polymerization•electrically conductive fabric †
Reduced graphene oxide
[164]•piece of jeans, polyester from lab coat, nonwoven material from swabs *•spray nozzle under pressure•strain sensor
[142]•cotton cloth
mass 220 g/m2, yarn diameter 223.9 ± 27.4 µm, fiber diameter 15.1 ± 0.8 µm †		•immersion, stirring•strain sensor
[165]•polyester † •graphene film encapsulated with insulating glue•electrocardiogram
[166]•100% cotton †•immersion in graphene oxide followed by reduction•smart and e-textiles †
[167]•100% cotton †•immersion in graphene oxide followed by reduction•multifunctional, electroconductive, superhydrophobic †
[168]•100% cotton
mass 114 g/m2 †		•immersion in graphene oxide followed by reduction, chemical polymerization of polypyrrole•supercapacitor
[169]•commercial cotton †•immersion followed by reduction•capacitor
Table
Table 2. Standard methods to determine the electrical properties of apparel fabrics and yarns.
Table 2. Standard methods to determine the electrical properties of apparel fabrics and yarns.
Title, Reference, UseScope
•ASTM D4496:2013 Standard test method for D-C resistance or conductance of moderately conductive materials [185]•suitable for materials composed of conductive and resistive components, not considered good insulators or conductors, volume resistivity 100 Ω/cm to 1077 Ω/cm or surface resistivity 103 Ω/square to 1077 Ω/square
•often anisotropic so is dependent on orientation
•standard conditions 23 °C and 50% RH, but can be measured in other conditions
•ASTM D257-07 Standard test methods for DC resistance or conductance of insulating materials [93,115,186]•volume and surface resistivity of insulating materials greater than 107 Ω/cm or 107 Ω/square
•volume/surface resistivity cell and megohmmeter
•fabric between two electrodes in cell, measure electrical-resistance with megohmmeter at applied voltage after 60 s
•surface resistance calculated with a formula
•AATCC 76:2018 Electrical resistivity of fabrics (2011, 1995 is an earlier version)
applicable to resistivity greater than 107 Ω/cm or 107Ω/square [61,93,154,184,187]		•how surface resistance affects electrostatic dissipation of fabric
•surface resistivity cell and megohmmeter
•fabric between two electrodes in cell, measure electrical resistance with megohmmeter at applied voltage after 60 s
•surface resistance and conductivity calculated with a formula
•same set up can be used to measure properties in accordance with ASTM D257-07 Standard Test Methods for DC Resistance or Conductance of Insulating Materials
•EN-BS 16812:2016 Textiles and textile products, electrically-conductive textiles, determination of the linear electrical resistance of conductive tracks [183]•linear resistance of conductive tracks for textile structures
•BS EN 1149-1:2006 Protective clothing. Electrostatic properties. Test method for measurement of surface resistivity;
BS EN 1149-2:1997 Protective clothing. Electrostatic properties. Test method for measurement of the electrical resistance through a material (vertical resistance) [131,188,189]		•measures surface resistance
•quantify electrostatic dissipation and prevent discharge
•Standard Recommendation S.R. CEN/TR 16298:2011 textiles and textile products; smart textiles; definitions, categorization, applications and standardization needs [190]•provides advice and information for consideration when writing standards for smart textiles
•expertise from multiple disciplines is required: textiles, medical devices, electronic devices
•tests to be suitable for the textile components and electronic components
•synergies from combining textiles and electronic components
Table
Table 3. Thermal and moisture transfer of functionalized fabrics.
Table 3. Thermal and moisture transfer of functionalized fabrics.
MaterialsKey ResultsReference
•woven, 100% cotton, 25.98 warp/cm, 22.83 weft/cm, warp 28sNe, weft 19sNe, mass 140 g/m2, thickness 0.41 mm
•knit, 100% cotton, 22.83 course/cm, 12.60 wales/cm, yarn count 30sNe, loop length 2.72 cm, mass 140 g/m2, thickness 0.58 mm
•graphene oxide treated, chemically reduced		•knit had higher add on (3.95% > 3.31%) due to porosity, bulk
•electrical resistivity of knit 0.19 MΩ/square < woven 0.26 MΩ/square
•air permeability decreased 41% for knit, 27% for woven
•pore size decrease, thickness increase for both
•water vapor permeability decreased: 2287 g/m2/day, 2000 g/m2/day to 1740 g/m2/day, 1700 g/m2/day for knit and woven, respectively		[93]
•plain woven, 100% cotton, 160 g/m2
•silver nanoparticle treatment, 50, 100, or 150 dips (30 second immersion, dried 100 °C 3 min), binder added		•decreased electrical resistivity with coating, partially covers pores of fabrics
•negligible decrease in air permeability, i.e., 790 mm/s > 782 mm/s, 770 mm/s, 756 mm/s after 50, 100, 150 dips, respectively
•small change in water vapor permeability 78.8% > 77.5%, 74.6%, 73.9% 50, 100, 150 dips, respectively		[115]
•three-layered weft knit, 67% cotton/33% polyester, carbon core polyester filament, and hollow polyester yarns with polypropylene yarns or 80% polyester/20% stainless-steel yarns
•micro porous polyurethane treatment		•increased mass, thickness with treatment
•high decrease in permeability to air and water retentivity
•comparatively lower decrease in permeability to water vapor
•surface wetting increased with coating (from grade one to grade three)
•resistance to water penetration increased with coating		[131]
•twill, plain woven, 100% wool
•polypyrrole and carbon treatment		•increased thermal conductivity following polypyrrole treatment; minimal change in thermal conductivity following carbon sputter coating[65]
•woven, 100% polyester with light-emitting devices•air permeability increased with pixel size of light-emitting devices[74]
•warp knit, stainless-steel wire, 150d/144f antibacterial nylon, 75d/48f crisscross-section polyester filaments as core, Z-direction cover, and S-direction cover, respectively•air permeability increased with increased polyester content, greater than 40 cm3/cm2/s[117]
Table
Table 4. Research papers investigating the durability to washing of functionalized fabrics.
Table 4. Research papers investigating the durability to washing of functionalized fabrics.
Wash Type ReferenceFabric Structure and Fiber ContentMethodResult
Standard method
International
[45]•100% silk integrated with copper polyamide substrate connected to touch sensor encapsulated with polydimethylsiloxane•ISO 6330:2012; type A washing machine, 2 kg cotton fabric: 15 min 30 °C 1200 rpm, 37 min 30 °C 400 rpm, 42 min 30 °C 400 rpm with fabric conditioner (35 mL) and detergent (37 mL); dried flat on a stainless-steel rack at 25 °C for 90 min•bending and twisting; maximum charge voltage decreased as the number of washes increased; circuit function lost after 1 wash for 800 rpm, retained 10 to 15 washes with wash of 400 rpm
[122]•100% Nomex® single jersey with silver-coated polyamide covered with a thermoplastic polyurethane film•ISO 6330:2012; 40 °C for 30 min with a Datacolour Ahiba IR laboratory dying machine for 50 consecutive washes•increased electrical resistance of approximately four times was reported after 50 washes
[77]•plain woven, polyester
158 g/m2, 30 warp/10 mm, 22 weft/10 mm coated with poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate for 5 min		•ISO 6330:2012; type A washing machine, 100% polyester ballast•increased surface resistance following each wash; following 10 washes increased magnitude of 100
[115]•plain woven, 100% cotton, 160 g/m2 treated with silver nanoparticles•ISO 105 C10: 2006A; 5 g/L standard detergent, liquor ratio 50:1, samples rinsed 30 min at 40 °C, dried at 25 °C 65%RH•no significant decrease in electrical conductivity after washing (with binder over silver coating)
[93]•woven, 100% cotton, 25.98 warp/cm, 22.83 weft/cm, warp 28sNe, weft 19sNe, mass 140 g/m2, thickness 0.41 mm;
knit, 100% cotton, 22.83course/cm, 12.60 wales/cm, yarn count 30sNe, loop length 2.72 cm, mass 140 g/m2, thickness 0.58 mm; dipped in graphene oxide, chemically reduced 		•ISO 105 C10:2006A; 5 g/L soap at 40 °C, for 30 min•surface electrical resistivity increased following washing: 0.19 MΩ/square and 0.26 MΩ/square to 1.75 MΩ/square and 2.39 MΩ/square for knit and woven, respectively
[94]•3/1 twill, 100% cotton treated with reduced graphene oxide•ISO BS EN 105 C06;
4 g/L reference detergent, 10 stainless-steel balls at 40 °C for 30 min		•electrical resistance increased from 36.94 KΩ/square to 70.32 KΩ/square after first wash; 139.09 KΩ/square after 10 washes
[146]•plain knit, 100% cotton with spray coating layer by layer of graphene solution•ISO 105-C03•surface resistance increased after wash
[126]•polypyrrole-treated wool fibers spun in yarn (36 tex) and knitted•ISO BS EN 105 C06;
EN ISO 105-X05:1997;
Original Hanau
Linitest apparatus, ECE detergent and tetrachloroethene extra pure, respectively		•after three wash cycles increase of 11.3ρs and 44.8ρs resistivity, color degradation;
after three organic solvent washes increase 1.02ρs and 1.06ρs resistivity, no color degradation
[127]•100% wool polypyrrole treated•EN ISO 105-C06:1997 A1S; EN ISO 105-X05:1997;
Original Hanau Linitest apparatus using ECE detergent and tetrachloroethene extra pure, respectively		•exponential decrease in electrical conductivity was observed following domestic and commercial washing
[116]•circuit boards and cables
•temperature sensors, sound
•circuit boards		•ISO 6330 15 times, 40 °C, 60 °C
•ISO 6330 10 times 40 °C
•dry cleaning with perchlorethylene		•remained operational after all wash and dry cleaning processes
United States of America
[90]•plain woven, 100% polyester, 70 g/m2, treated with reduced graphene oxide•AATCC 61-2A, 50 °C for 30 min, liquor ratio 1:50 with AATCC soap, 5 cycles•surface and volume resistivity increased
[109]•plain woven, 100% cotton, mass 190 g/m2 treated with graphene nanoplate and polyurethane dispersion•AATCC 61-2006; 500 mL (75 mm × 125 mm) stainless-steel lever lock canisters; 200 mL standard detergent with 10 stainless-steel balls•surface electrical resistivity increased from 2.94 × 101−1Ω/m to 3.35 x101−1Ω/m after 10 washes
[73]•100% cotton treated with polyaniline•AATCC 132:2004; AATCC 86:2005; in capped bottles with 200 mL TTE detergent solution at 30 ± 2 °C for 30 min, intense stirring, 40 washes•surface resistance was stable after 40 washes
[76]•plain woven, 100% polyester
mass 168 g/m2 treated with poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythio-phene) with and without fluorinated decyl polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane		•Australian Standard (AS 2001.1.4), 5 cycles•surface resistance increased with increased cycles from 1.0 KΩ/square to 1.9 KΩ/square and 0.6 KΩ/square to 2.3 KΩ/square with and without the additive
Other
[162]•polyamide/elastane poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate coated•commercial detergent (X.TRA Total, France) in domestic laundering machine (Miele, France); 35 min at 40 °C with 30 mL detergent, total machine load 2.5 kg, 600 rpm; corresponding to ISO 6330•after 50 wash cycles the power spectral density decreased for one solution, while the other showed minimal differences
[50]• woven knitting wool with nickel/titanium filament covered with polyurethane filaments•dipped in detergent dissolved in water, thoroughly rubbed with the hand, rinsed with water, naturally dried•maintained the same signal level
[138]•100% cotton (image show knit) coated with reduced graphene oxide and single-walled carbon nanotubes•rinsing in deionized water with a magnetic stirrer, 10 kPa pressure, 10 cycles•minimal change in resistance
[91]•woven 100% cotton, 100% viscose, 100% linen, 100% polyester coated with graphite/polyurethane dispersion•household washing machine, heavy duty detergent at 40 °C, 1400 rpm, 10 or 50 cycles•graphite flakes removed after 10 cycles
•electrical resistance increase greatest for viscose and polyester
•less change observed with higher graphite concentration and fine flakes
[164]•piece of jeans, polyester from lab coat, nonwoven material from swabs graphene-treated•beaker with water, 450 rpm for 16 h•no delamination
[97]•100% cotton 40 × 40 yarn, 130 g/m2, treated with graphene oxide with vacuum filtration, thermally reduced•Labortex oscillating type dyeing machine, 100 mL deionized water, 2 mg/mL sodium carbonate, 5 mg/mL soap, 60 °C for 30 min, 10 cycles•0.9 KΩ/square before wash, remained lower than 2 KΩ/square after 10 washes
[92]•100% polyethylene terephthalate inkjet printed with graphene with a polyurethane layer•immersion in 100 mL deionized water with 2 mg/mL sodium carbonate and 5 mg/mL soap at 50 °C in a beaker, tumble washed for 30 min according to Ren et al. [97]•decreased performance, but still electrically conductive after 20 cycles
[75]•100% silk poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate coated•’vigorously stirred, commercial laundry detergent, 10 min, rinsed in water•the coating was not largely effected by laundry detergent or mechanical stress
[98]•plain woven 100% wool treated with graphene/titanium dioxide•60 °C for 20 min, 1 g/L nonionic detergent, rinsed with distilled water, dried•durable to wash based on minimal change in electrical resistivity after one wash
[47]•woven, 100% polyamide filament coated with copper in warp and weft, 52 ± 5 g/m2•perchlorethylene in a two-bath procedure, 16 kg load for 10 cycles (both 20 °C, duration 4 min and 6 min, 300 rpm and 360 rpm, bath ratio 1:2 and 1:4, respectively, detergent mega super star in bath one only. Dried 60 °C for 30 min, ironed at 110 °C following suppliers instructions after each wash•electromagnetic shielding effectiveness decreased following increased dry cleaning cycles
•visible degradation was apparent from scanning electron microscope, increasing with increased cycles, ironing also had a noted effect on degradation, i.e., the coating was not continuous
[96]•woven, 100% cotton treated with multiwalled carbon nanotubes•immersion in 100 mL water at 40 °C, stirred 600 r/min for 20 min, dried 60 °C, 10 repeats•after ~5 washes electrical resistance stabilized
[86]•woven, 100% cotton•washed in water (soaked, squeezed, wrung out)•’outstanding performance’
[120]•WEALTHY•rinsed with water, Marsilia soap•considered washable

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wilson, S.; Laing, R. Fabrics and Garments as Sensors: A Research Update. Sensors 2019, 19, 3570. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19163570

AMA Style

Wilson S, Laing R. Fabrics and Garments as Sensors: A Research Update. Sensors. 2019; 19(16):3570. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19163570

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wilson, Sophie, and Raechel Laing. 2019. "Fabrics and Garments as Sensors: A Research Update" Sensors 19, no. 16: 3570. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19163570

APA Style

Wilson, S., & Laing, R. (2019). Fabrics and Garments as Sensors: A Research Update. Sensors, 19(16), 3570. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19163570

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop