The consumer use phase of textiles and fashion contributes one-third to the carbon and water footprint, which is the highest for the life cycle assessment technique. However, it is only estimated by questionnaire or estimated data. We carried out a 180-day direct data tracking for three volunteer families with different demographic characteristics. The results show that consumer behaviors significantly influence the carbon and water scarcity footprint. Moreover, the uncertainty between the test data and the energy label estimated data is revealed. For family 1, the energy label-based electricity consumption carbon footprint is 0.57 kgCO2e, while the empirical data result is 2.79 kgCO2e. We proposed an improved carbon footprint evaluation method with the correction parameters, which can be estimated using the sampling data from the customers. The results show that applying actual data collection and building a database is necessary to reduce the astonishing errors, making error analysis possible and meaningful.
CaiBCuiCZhangD, et al.
China city-level greenhouse gas emissions inventory in 2015 and uncertainty analysis. Appl Energ2019;
253: 113579.
2.
WeiCWangMFuQ, et al.
Temporal characteristics of greenhouse gases (CO2 and CH4) in the megacity Shanghai, China: association with air pollutants and meteorological conditions. Atmos Res2020;
235: 104759.
3.
LiXRenJWuZ, et al.
Development of a novel process-level water footprint assessment for textile production based on modularity. J Clean Prod2021;
291: 125884.
4.
ZhangTZhaiYMaX, et al.
Towards environmental sustainability: Life cycle assessment-based water footprint analysis on China's cotton production. J Clean Prod2021;
313: 127925.
5.
LiXChenLDingX.Allocation methodology of process-level carbon footprint calculation in textile and apparel products. Sustainability2019;
11: 4471.
6.
ZhaoMZhouYMengJ, et al.
Virtual carbon and water flows embodied in global fashion trade-a case study of denim products. J Clean Prod2021;
303: 127080.
7.
MoazzemSCrossinEDaverF, et al.
Baseline scenario of carbon footprint of polyester T-shirt. J Fiber Bioeng Informat2018;
11: 1–14.
8.
LuoYWuXDingX.Carbon and water footprints assessment of cotton jeans using the method based on modularity: a full life cycle perspective. J Clean Prod2022;
332: 130042.
9.
Huang R, Wu X and Ding X. Research and the accounting model of carbon emissions in household clothes washing among Shanghai’s urban families. Dye Finish 2013; 11: 36–40.
10.
WiedemannSBiggsLNebelB, et al.
Environmental impacts associated with the production, use, and end-of-life of a woollen garment.Int J Life Cycle Assess2020;
25: 1486–1499.
11.
MorganEFoxonTJTallontireA.‘I prefer 30°’?: business strategies for influencing consumer laundry practices to reduce carbon emissions. J Clean Prod2018;
190: 234–250.
12.
SindenG.The contribution of PAS 2050 to the evolution of international greenhouse gas emission standards. Int J Life Cycle Assess2009;
14: 195–203.
13.
PAS 2395:2014. Specification for the assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the whole life cycle of textile products.
14.
MunasingheMJayasinghePRalapanaweV, et al.
Supply/value chain analysis of carbon and energy footprint of garment manufacturing in Sri Lanka. Sustain Prod Consump2016;
5: 51–64.
15.
Peters G, Svanstr€om M, Roos S, et al. Carbon footprints in the textile industry. In: Handbook of life cycle assessment (LCA) of textiles and clothing. Sawston, Cambridge, Subramanian Senthilkannan Muthu, Elsevier, 2015, pp. 3–30.
16.
LuoYSongKDingX, et al.
Environmental sustainability of textiles and apparel: a review of evaluation methods. Environ Impact Assess Rev2021;
86: 106497.
17.
ISO 14046: 2014. Environmental management — water footprint — principles, requirements and guideline.
18.
Griffiths-SattenspielBWilsonW.The carbon footprint of water.
Portland, O∼R:
River Network, 2009.
19.
WangJZhongLLongY.Baseline water stress: China.
Beijing:
World Resources Institute, 2016.
20.
Schram W, Lampropoulos I, AlSkaif T, et al. On the use of average versus marginal emission factors. In: SMARTGREENS 2019-Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems, Heraklion, Greece, 3 March- 5 March, 2019, paper no. 9789 (pp. 187–193). New York: SciTePress.
21.
CaiWWangCJinZ, et al.
Quantifying baseline emission factors of air pollutants in China’s regional power grids. Environ Sci Technol2013;
47: 3590–3597.
22.
YueQWuHSunJ, et al.
Deriving emission factors and estimating direct nitrous oxide emissions for crop cultivation in China. Environ Sci Technol2019;
53: 10246–10257.
23.
ChengKPanGSmithP, et al.
Carbon footprint of China's crop production—an estimation using agro-statistics data over 1993–2007. Agric Ecosyst Environ2011;
142: 231–237.
24.
ShaikhINAhammedMM.Quantity and quality characteristics of greywater: a review. J Environ Manag2020;
261: 110266.
25.
RuCHuXWangW, et al.
Evaluation of the crop water stress index as an indicator for the diagnosis of grapevine water deficiency in greenhouses. Horticulturae2020;
6: 86.
26.
VirnodkarSSPachghareVKPatilV, et al.
Remote sensing and machine learning for crop water stress determination in various crops: a critical review. Precis Agric2020;
21: 1121–1155.
27.
Wen X, Yang X and Wang Z. Example of carbon accounting for water treatment and application study of different N2O emission factors. Adv Anal Chem 2022; 12(2): 60—67.
28.
Li J, Wu X, Ding X, et al. Carbon footprint and water footprint assessment of textile and garment in use stage. In: 2019 China household electrical appliances technical conference, Foshan, Guangdong, China,21 October-24 October 2019, paper no 6, pp1201-1206. Beijing: China Appliance.
29.
BrandaoMHeijungsRCowieAL.On quantifying sources of uncertainty in the carbon footprint of biofuels: crop/feedstock, LCA modelling approach, land-use change, and GHG metrics. Biofuel Res J2022;
9: 1608–1616.
