## 3 Results
Therefore, the more orange loops are simulated, the closer the overall impacts of the entire wear2 wearTM product system becomes to the impacts of one single orange product system. That means that the maximum impact difference between the wear2 wearTM and the linear jacket is equal to the difference of one single orange loop to one linear product system shown in Figure 3 above. For example, this maximum impact difference amounts to 32% less GHG emissions for the wear2 wearTM product system compared the linear product system. For the GHG emissions, this lower impact is mainly due to lower energy requirements for material production and the prevention of incineration of PES at the EoL, which results in fossil CO2 emissions in the linear product system. Of all indicators measured, the water scarcity indicator shows the biggest differences. While most synthetic textiles have the highest water use during the use phase due to washing practices, the workwear jacket of this study is only washed three-times in its four-year lifetime. Therefore, most of the water is used in the material production. Due to the fact that the production of virgin material for the wear2 wearTM product system is significantly lower than for the linear product system, this variance is reflected in the water scarcity indicator. Note the water scarcity indicator takes into account where the water is used. If water is used in a rather water scarce region, the indicator reflects this fact by having a higher score. This leads to an even lower score of the water indicator for the orange product systems, because the recycling--providing most of the raw materials--is taking place in Germany, a country with no severe water scarcity today. For the linear jacket, the raw materials are sourced globally, including from water scarce regions. This combination of factors lead to a very low score of the water indicator for the three scenarios in comparison to the linear product system. As it has been mentioned already several times, one critical element of the circularity of the wear2 wearTM product system is the lifetime prolongation of the materials along several loops. For example, if PET bottles or other PES waste streams were to be used as the main ingredient for the fiber production not only for the first loop but also continued in the following loops, the quality of the PES would quickly deteriorate. Nevertheless, we have additionally modeled the second loop that also contains PET bottles as the main ingredient and compared it to the second loop with virgin PES (see Figure 2 above). The results of this comparison are given in Figure 5 below. In general, the differences in the impact levels do not vary significantly. Only for the water scarcity indicator is the difference greater than 10% in favor of the PES version. Overall, one PET bottle-based product system scores lower in six out of eleven impact categories, meaning that it cannot be concluded that it is generally better than one PES-based product system. Above all, the PES version has the advantage that the quality of the granulate after recycling (one or more times) is significantly higher compared to the granulate in the PET version. Therefore, using virgin PES for the fibers extents the number of possible loops tremendously. This in fact is a strong argument for the use of virgin PES instead of PET bottles or other waste streams. Figure 4: Environmental impact comparison between one linear product system and the average impacts of three, five and ten wear2 wearTM product systems. Each of the product systems contain one first (blue) loop. The remaining product systems are second (orange) loops. Figure 5: Impact comparison between the second loop product systems once with virgin PES and once with PET bottles as the main input for fiber production.