ReviewRSC advances2026
Comparative analysis of traditional and smart antibacterial textiles for wearable technology; a comprehensive review.
Review in RSC advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The growing use of wearable technologies in healthcare, athletics, and defense has created a strong demand for textile materials that are durable, safe, and capable of providing long-term antimicrobial protection. Conventional antibacterial fabrics typically depend on passive agents such as metal ions and synthetic biocides. Although effective initially, these systems often suffer from rapid activity loss due to uncontrolled release, limited wash durability, and concerns related to environmental burden and potential toxicity. To address these limitations, next-generation smart antibacterial textiles have been developed using stimuli-responsive polymers, nanofibers, hydrogels, and conductive materials that enable on-demand antimicrobial activity in response to pH, moisture, heat, or mechanical strain. This review compares conventional and smart antibacterial textiles in terms of activation strategy, working mechanism, durability, fabrication routes, antibacterial performance, and sustainability. Traditional approaches, including pad-dry-cure and sol-gel methods, can provide effective antimicrobial action but are often constrained by poor wash fastness and uncontrolled leaching of active agents. In contrast, smart systems fabricated through electrospinning, microencapsulation, or conductive coating generally offer improved durability, adaptive response, and reduced environmental impact. A key advantage of smart textile design lies in the combined engineering of the textile matrix and the incorporation of stimuli-responsive components, enabling multifunctional materials with intelligent behavior toward external triggers. These systems also support integration with sensing and energy-harvesting functions, which is essential for advanced wearable platforms. However, challenges remain in large-scale reproducibility, cytotoxicity assessment, and the lack of standardized protocols for evaluating dynamic antibacterial performance. Overall, this review provides a comparative framework that highlights the shift from passive antibacterial coatings toward multifunctional, responsive textiles for next-generation wearable applications.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.