Cited by 1,087Environmental Impact and SustainabilityWaste Management and RecyclingSustainable Supply Chain Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 53 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling – A review

Open access
Sandin, Gustav, Peters, Greg M.·2018·Journal of Cleaner Production

Abstract

This paper reviews studies of the environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling, to provide a summary of the current knowledge and point out areas for further research. Forty-one studies were reviewed, whereof 85% deal with recycling and 41% with reuse (27% cover both reuse and recycling). Fibre recycling is the most studied recycling type (57%), followed by polymer/oligomer recycling (37%), monomer recycling (29%), and fabric recycling (14%). Cotton (76%) and polyester (63%) are the most studied materials. The reviewed publications provide strong support for claims that textile reuse and recycling in general reduce environmental impact compared to incineration and landfilling, and that reuse is more beneficial than recycling. The studies do, however, expose scenarios under which reuse and recycling are not beneficial for certain environmental impacts. For example, as benefits mainly arise due to the avoided production of new products, benefits may not occur in cases with low replacement rates or if the avoided production processes are relatively clean. Also, for reuse, induced customer transport may cause environmental impact that exceeds the benefits of avoided production, unless the use phase is sufficiently extended. In terms of critical methodological assumptions, authors most often assume that textiles sent to recycling are wastes free of environmental burden, and that reused products and products made from recycled materials replace products made from virgin fibres. Examples of other content mapped in the review are: trends of publications over time, common aims and geographical scopes, commonly included and omitted impact categories, available sources of primary inventory data, knowledge gaps and future research needs. The latter include the need to study cascade systems, to explore the potential of combining various reuse and recycling routes.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review synthesizes 41 studies on the environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling, finding broad support that reuse and recycling generally reduce impacts compared with incineration and landfilling, and that reuse is usually more beneficial than recycling. It also identifies conditions under which benefits may not occur, especially low replacement rates, fossil-powered recycling, and transport burdens in reuse.

Key findings

  • The review covers 41 publications: 85% deal with recycling, 44% with reuse, and 29% with both. Fibre recycling is most studied (57%), followed by polymer/oligomer recycling (37%), monomer recycling (23%), and fabric recycling (14%). Cotton is the most studied material (76%), followed by polyester (63%), viscose (25%), and wool (20%).
  • The literature strongly supports that textile reuse and recycling generally reduce environmental impact compared to incineration and landfilling, and that reuse is more beneficial than recycling, except under certain circumstances related to transportation distances.
  • Benefits mainly arise from avoided production of new products. Studies expose scenarios where reuse/recycling may not be beneficial: low replacement rates, recycling powered by fossil energy, avoided production processes that are relatively clean, and for reuse, induced customer transport that exceeds avoided-production benefits unless the use phase is sufficiently extended.
  • Climate change is by far the most studied impact category, covered in 39 of 41 studies; energy use is second, covered in 18. Authors most often assume textiles sent to recycling are waste free of environmental burden (cut-off allocation) and that reused/recycled products replace virgin-fibre products (system expansion), often with an unjustified 1:1 replacement rate.

Methods

  • Literature review in two steps: searching Scopus, Science Direct, and Google Scholar in May–June 2017 with a Boolean search string, then applying inclusion/exclusion rules. This yielded 41 publications: 21 peer-reviewed papers and 20 other publication types.
  • Content was mapped using questions on aims, methods, product systems, reuse/recycling type, materials, geographical scope, allocation methods, primary inventory data, impact categories, conclusions, and citations between studies.
  • All 41 publications are either a full LCA, a streamlined/partial LCA, or use LCA data as input; the review synthesizes results descriptively and maps citation linkages.

Limitations

  • Stated gaps: need more detailed studies and updated, publicly available primary inventory data, particularly for collection and sorting processes and for monomer and polymer recycling; only 10 of the 41 reviewed studies contain primary data on reuse or recycling processes.
  • Stated gaps: lack of studies on cascade systems, actual replacement rates for different markets and product types, and future systems accounting for changes in background systems.
  • Evident from the text: the search was limited to English and Swedish and excluded studies before 2003; 20 of 41 publications were not peer-reviewed; collection and/or sorting were fully or partly excluded in about half of the studies; and many studies focus narrowly on climate change and energy use, risking missed impacts and problem shifting.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.266

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

2 of 53 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 87 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 40
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 38
72 of 72
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Polymer, oligomer and monomer recycling typically yields fibres of similar quality to virgin fibres.

    “In contrast, polymer, oligomer and monomer recycling typically yields fibres of similar quality to virgin fibres.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Collection and sorting of textile waste have non-negligible environmental impact.

    “Nonetheless, the common exclusion of collection and sorting indicates that several studies have underestimated the environmental impact of reuse and recycling systems.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The benefits of reuse and recycling are mainly due to the avoidance of the manufacturing of new products.

    “For example, as the benefits of reuse and recycling are mainly due to the avoidance of the manufacturing of new products, low replacement rates can eliminate the benefits (as was discussed in section 3.5).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The number of publications in a region reflects the level of interest in that region.

    “This indicates that the interest for textile reuse and recycling (or at least the environmental impact thereof) is indeed greater in Europe than elsewhere, with a particularly strong interest in Northern Europe.”
4 of 4

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Abstract and results disagree on the share studying monomer recycling

    Minor

    The abstract reports 29% for monomer recycling, whereas the results and conclusions report 23%.

  • Abstract and results disagree on the share of studies covering reuse

    Minor

    The abstract says 41% of studies cover reuse, while the results and conclusions both say 44%.

  • Abstract and results disagree on the share covering both reuse and recycling

    Minor

    The abstract reports 27% covering both reuse and recycling, but the results and conclusions report 29%.

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 51 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Oerlikon, 2010, The fiber year 2009/10, World SurveyTextNonwovens Ind
  2. Östlund, 2015, Textilåtervinning: Tekniska möjligheter och utmaningar [Textile recycling – technical opportunities and challenges], Naturvårdsverket rapport, 6685
  3. Stevenson, 2012, Study into consumer second-hand shopping behaviour to identify the re-use displacement effect, Waste Res. Act. Prog. (WRAP)
  4. The Fiber Year Consulting, 2015, The Fiber Year 2015, World Survey on Textiles and Nonwovens, Issue, 15

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 1,084

Metadata

Authors
Sandin, G., & Peters, G. M.
Affiliations
RISE Research Institutes of Sweden (SE)
Corresponding author
Sandin, Gustav
Venue
Journal of Cleaner Production
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-05
Volume
184
Pages
353-365
ISSN
0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2789335896
Cited by
1,087
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 170 · 2025: 185 · 2024: 152 · 2023: 135 · 2022: 148 · 2021: 123 · 2020: 107 · 2019: 61 · 2018: 6
FWCI
36.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cleaner Production (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Diva portal (Dalarna University Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Union's (646226)
  • Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Waste Management and Recycling
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
Keywords
textile reuse, textile recycling, environmental impact, fiber recycling, polymer recycling, cotton, polyesters, incineration, landfilling, replacement rate, cascade systems, life cycle assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-18, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-18 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review