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

DOI 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.266

Open this paper in CoChat — free account Open PDF

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.

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.

Claims the paper makes

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

The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“As the length of the fibres and the constituent molecules are reduced by wear and laundry (Palme et al., 2014), fabric and fibre recycling typically yields materials of lower quality (if quality is defined in terms of fibre quality) than materials made from virgin fibres (unless mixed with yarn from virgin fibres).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1.1. A topology of textile reuse and recycling
What the sources say
- Partly supported
  The Introduction says laundering reduces the degree of polymerization of cotton cellulose, and the Abstract reports a substantial decrease in molecular mass after more than 50 launderings. These support shortening of the constituent molecules. The paper describes fibre abrasion and damage in Results and discussion, but does not establish that wear and laundering reduce fibre length. The citation is attached to that first clause, not to the subsequent claim about recycled-material quality or mixing with virgin yarn. (LLM, conf=0.86)
  cites Palme et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Polymer, oligomer and monomer recycling is, however, hindered by a lack of technologies for sorting and separation into pure enough fractions ( € Ostlund et al., 2015), although there have recently been significant breakthroughs in the separation of cotton/polyester blends (Palme et al., 2017).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1.2. Current status of textile reuse and recycling
What the sources say
- Supported
  The Conclusions report a method that separates polycotton sheets into cotton residue and PET-derived monomers, yielding pure cotton and terephthalic acid streams. The Background says the authors found no prior research papers on alkaline hydrolysis of PET in polycotton as a recycling method. Together, these passages support the paraphrase that the study represents a recent significant advance in separating cotton/polyester blends. (LLM, conf=0.89)
  cites Palme et al., 2017 source
Strength:boosted· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes

Show all 87 claims

Probably not a substantial claim. 40
It may state two separate claims as one. 38

In the paper
“For example, Allwood et al. (2006) identified that increased recycling in the UK may reduce cotton cultivation (and associated environmental impact) in the USA, but increase energy use (and associated environmental impact) in the UK.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.8. Findings e the environmental potential of textile reuse and recycling
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Allwood et al., 2006
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“As climate change is also considered in all remaining publications except two e Sahni et al. (2010) and AITEX (2007) e it is by far the most studied impact category or inventory indicator.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Sahni et al., 2010
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites AITEX, 2007
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“When reuse and recycling are both considered, the former is found to be more beneficial than the latter (Dahlbo et al., 2017;Schmidt et al., 2016;Zamani et al., 2015;Beton et al., 2014;Corsten et al., 2013;Palm et al., 2013;Farrant et al., 2010;McGill, 2009;Bartl, 2009), except for under certain circumstances with regard to transportation distances (Fortuna and Diyamandoglu, 2017).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.8. Findings e the environmental potential of textile reuse and recycling
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dahlbo et al., 2017 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schmidt et al., 2016 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fortuna and Diyamandoglu, 2017 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Based on the number of citations from other environmental assessments of reuse/recycling, Woolridge et al. (2006) appears to be considered the seminal piece of work among the reviewed studies, with 15 citations, followed by Allwood et al. (2006) with 10 citations and Farrant et al. (2010) with 9 citations.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.7. Linkages between studies and citations
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Woolridge et al., 2006 source
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Allwood et al., 2006
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Farrant et al., 2010 source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Some of the reviewed publications do consider future recycling technologies (e.g.€ Ostlund et al., 2015), but it would be valuable to see more explorative studies accounting for changes in background systems, which are also in constant flux.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.9. Gaps and further research
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites € Ostlund et al., 2015
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This data is from an unspecified year of origin and lack information on, for example, recovery rates of certain chemicals used in the processes.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.9. Gaps and further research
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Patagonia (2006)
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, the modelling of synthetic monomer recycling in Zamani et al. (2015) and Schmidt et al. (2016), and one of the four synthetic monomer recycling models in Shen et al. (2010a, b), are based on inventory data from Patagonia (2006), originally from the Japanese company Teijin.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.9. Gaps and further research
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zamani et al. (2015) source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schmidt et al. (2016) source
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Shen et al. (2010a, b)
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The global demand for textile products is steadily increasing (The Fiber Year Consulting, 2015;Oerlikon, 2010), a trend likely to continue due population growth and economic development.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites The Fiber Year Consulting, 2015
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Oerlikon, 2010
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Sixty-three percent of textile fibres are derived from petrochemicals (Lenzing, 2017) whose production and fate give rise to considerable carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions (Shen et al., 2010a).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Lenzing, 2017
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The remaining 37% is dominated by cotton (24%), a thirsty plant associated with water depletion e the desiccation of the Aral Sea being the most infamous example (Micklin, 2007) e and toxic pollution, due to intensive use of pesticides (FAO-ICAC, 2015).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Micklin, 2007 source
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites FAO-ICAC, 2015
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The remaining 37% is dominated by cotton (24%), a thirsty plant associated with water depletion e the desiccation of the Aral Sea being the most infamous example (Micklin, 2007) e and toxic pollution, due to intensive use of pesticides (FAO-ICAC, 2015).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Micklin, 2007 source
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites FAO-ICAC, 2015
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“There are, however, large variations within Europe: more prominent examples are Germany, in which about 70% of disposed textiles are collected for reuse and recycling, whereof a fraction is separated for incineration (Textile Recycling Association, 2005), and Denmark, in which about 50% is collected, mainly for reuse domestically or abroad (Palm et al., 2014).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1.2. Current status of textile reuse and recycling
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Textile Recycling Association, 2005
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Roos et al. (2016) show that such a grand transition requires a combination of different measures for impact reduction, most likely including more reuse and recycling.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Roos et al. (2016) source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“There are, however, large variations within Europe: more prominent examples are Germany, in which about 70% of disposed textiles are collected for reuse and recycling, whereof a fraction is separated for incineration (Textile Recycling Association, 2005), and Denmark, in which about 50% is collected, mainly for reuse domestically or abroad (Palm et al., 2014).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1.2. Current status of textile reuse and recycling
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Palm et al., 2014 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Wet treatment processes (dyeing, finishing, printing, etc.) are major sources of toxic emissions (Roos et al., 2015b), and spinning of yarns and weaving/knitting of fabrics most often rely on fossil energy use, causing emissions such as CO 2 and particulates (Roos et al., 2015a).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Roos et al., 2015a
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.3. Aims and scopes of publications
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of publications in a region reflects the level of interest in that region.
In the paper
“For example, in Europe about 15e20% of disposed textiles are collected (the rest is landfilled or incinerated), whereof about 50% is downcycled and 50% is reused, mainly through exporting to developing countries (Textile Recycling Association, 2005).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1.2. Current status of textile reuse and recycling
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Textile Recycling Association, 2005
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The preponderance of studies on polyester and cotton reflects the domination of fibre markets by these fibres e they occupy about 51% and 24% of the global market, respectively (Lenzing, 2017;The Fiber Year Consulting, 2015).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.1. Overview of publications
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Lenzing, 2017
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites The Fiber Year Consulting, 2015
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Allwood et al. (2006) suggest greenhouse emissions, water use, toxic chemicals and waste are the main environmental issues facing the textile industry.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Allwood et al. (2006)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

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

Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C. A., et al. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1259855 · Cited by 12,527
You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online
Belk, R. (2014) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001 · Cited by 2,951 · cited 1×
“In the academic literature, various forms of reuse have been conceptualised in terms such as collaborative consumption, product-service systems, commercial sharing systems and access-based consumption (Belk, 2014).”
Background
The Aral Sea disaster
Micklin, P. (2007) · Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences · doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.35.031306.140120 · Cited by 755 · cited 7×
“…Guardia, 2017; Yasin et al., 2016; €Ostlund et al., 2015; Muthu et al., 2012a; Allwood et al., 2006), it is important to include impact categories corresponding to the environmental issues associated with conventional cotton, namely water depletion and toxicity (Roos et al., 2015a; Micklin, 2007).”
BackgroundInfluential
Allocation in ISO 14041—a critical review
Ekvall, T., & Finnveden, G. (2001) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/s0959-6526(00)00052-4 · Cited by 519 · cited 1×
“…to when the material from a product is recycled and used in a (more or less) identical product, whereas open-loop recycling (also called cascade recycling) refers to processes in which the material from a product is recycled and used in another product (Ekvall and Finnveden, 2001; Kl€opffer, 1996).”
Background
Open-loop recycling: A LCA case study of PET bottle-to-fibre recycling
Shen, L., Worrell, E., & Patel, M. K. (2010) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.06.014 · Cited by 514 · cited 4×
“Next to Shen et al. (2010b), Woolridge et al. (2006) and Liang et al. (2012) have gained most citations per year, 7.1 and 5.8, respectively.”
BackgroundInfluential
Putting a circular economy into practice in China
Zhi-jun, F., & Nai-ling, Y. (2007) · Sustainability Science · doi:10.1007/s11625-006-0018-1 · Cited by 385 · cited 2×
“The interest in increased textile reuse and recycling is consistent with the increased attention being given to the circular economy concept in international and national policy, see for example the 2015 EU Circular Economy Action Plan (EC, 2017) and the 11th Chinese five-year plan issued in 2006 (Zhijun and Nailing,…”
Background
Life cycle assessment of clothing libraries: can collaborative consumption reduce the environmental impact of fast fashion?
Zamani, B., Sandin, G., & Peters, G. M. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.128 · Cited by 339 · cited 2×
“Some authors identify the issue that unless the use phase is sufficiently extended, the additional transport and other efforts associated with additional life cycles may exceed the benefits of avoided production (Fortuna and Diyamandoglu, 2017; Zamani et al., 2017).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Well dressed? The present and future sustainability of clothing and textiles in the United Kingdom.
Mdr, C. (2006) · Cited by 324
Environmental impact assessment of man-made cellulose fibres
Shen, L., Worrell, E., & Patel, M. K. (2010) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.10.001 · Cited by 289 · cited 4×
“Next to Shen et al. (2010b), Woolridge et al. (2006) and Liang et al. (2012) have gained most citations per year, 7.1 and 5.8, respectively.”
BackgroundInfluential
Environmental benefits from reusing clothes
Farrant, L., Olsen, S. I., & Wangel, A. (2010) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1007/s11367-010-0197-y · Cited by 278 · cited 5×
“Six publications include some kind of weighting, either endpoint indicators complementing midpoint indicators (Dahlbo et al., 2017; Beton et al., 2014; Palm et al., 2013; Farrant et al., 2010), or end-point indicators without showing results for the contributing midpoint indicators (Muthu et al.”
BackgroundInfluential
Increasing textile circulation – consequences and requirements
Dahlbo, H., Aalto, K., Eskelinen, H., & Salmenperä, H. (2017) · Sustainable Production and Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2016.06.005 · Cited by 277
Life cycle assessment for reuse/recycling of donated waste textiles compared to use of virgin material: an UK energy saving perspective
Woolridge, A. C., Ward, G. D., Phillips, P. S., Collins, M., & Gandy, S. (2006) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.06.006 · Cited by 258 · cited 5×
“…cotton has been shown to be an important environmental gain of textile reuse (Dahlbo et al., 2017; Roos et al., 2017; Sahni et al., 2010; Woolridge et al., 2006) and recycling (EsteveTurrillas and de la Guardia, 2017; Yasin et al., 2016; €Ostlund et al., 2015; Muthu et al., 2012a;…”
BackgroundInfluential
Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Management
(2011) · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1899-9 · Cited by 231
Environmental impact of Recover cotton in textile industry
Esteve-Turrillas, F. A., & de la Guárdia, M. (2016) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.09.034 · Cited by 220
Beyond the throwaway society: a life cycle-based assessment of the environmental benefit of reuse
Castellani, V., Sala, S., & Mirabella, N. (2014) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1002/ieam.1614 · Cited by 167 · cited 3×
“Studies to identify actual replacement rates have been conducted (Castellani et al., 2015; Stevenson and Gmitrowicz, 2012; Farrant et al., 2010; Thomas, 2003), and different replacement rates (i.e. not 1:1) have been considered for in some of the reviewed publications (Dahlbo et al., 2017; Fortuna…”
BackgroundMethod
A carbon footprint of textile recycling: a case study in Sweden
Zamani, B., Svanström, M., Peters, G., & Rydberg, T. (2015) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/jiec.12208 · Cited by 162 · cited 5×
“Among more recent work, Zamani et al. (2015) and Beton et al. (2014) stand out, with 6 citations each.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSelf-citation
Development of an efficient route for combined recycling of PET and cotton from mixed fabrics
Palme, A., Peterson, A., de la Motte, H., Theliander, H., & Brelid, H. (2017) · Textiles and Clothing Sustainability · doi:10.1186/s40689-017-0026-9 · Cited by 155 · cited 2×
“Polymer, oligomer and monomer recycling is, however, hindered by a lack of technologies for sorting and separation into pure enough fractions (€Ostlund et al., 2015), although there have recently been significant breakthroughs in the separation of cotton/polyester blends (Palme et al., 2017).”
Background
Comparing life cycle energy and GHG emissions of bio‐based PET, recycled PET, PLA, and man‐made cellulosics
Shen, L., Worrell, E., & Patel, M. K. (2012) · Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining · doi:10.1002/bbb.1368 · Cited by 146 · cited 3×
“Excluding the most recent publications (from 2016 to 2017), for which the data is prone to error, numbers of publications per year span from 1.6 for Shen et al. (2012) to 13.6 for Shen et al. (2010b); interestingly, the latter was not identified as a seminal piece of work in the above analysis,…”
BackgroundInfluential
A life cycle assessment (LCA)-based approach to guiding an industry sector towards sustainability: the case of the Swedish apparel sector
Roos, S., Zamani, B., Sandin, G., Peters, G. M., & Svanström, M. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.146 · Cited by 140 · cited 1×
“Roos et al. (2016) show that such a grand transition requires a combination of different measures for impact reduction, most likely including more reuse and recycling.”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Demand and Dematerialization Impacts of Second‐Hand Markets
Thomas, V. M. (2003) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1162/108819803322564352 · Cited by 139
Environmental Improvement Potential of textiles (IMPRO Textiles)
Adrien, B., Debora, D., Farrant, L., Thomas, G., Yannick, L. G., Marie, D., Anne, P., & Boufateh, I. (2014) · Joint Research Centre (European Commission) · doi:10.2791/52624 · Cited by 137
Using the planetary boundaries framework for setting impact-reduction targets in LCA contexts
Sandin, G., Peters, G. M., & Svanström, M. (2015) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1007/s11367-015-0984-6 · Cited by 135 · cited 1×
“Sandin et al. (2015) estimate that, for several environmental impact categories, the impact per garment use in a western country (in this case, Sweden) must be reduced by 30e100% by 2050 if the industry is to be considered sustainable with regard to the planetary boundaries outlined by Steffen et…”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Carbon footprint reduction in the textile process chain: Recycling of textile materials
Muthu, S. S., Li, Y., Hu, J. Y., et al. (2012) · Fibers and Polymers · doi:10.1007/s12221-012-1065-0 · Cited by 124 · cited 4×
“A common type of a streamlined LCA is those focussing solely on climate impact, i.e. carbon footprints (see Yasin et al., 2016; Vergara et al., 2016; Glew et al., 2012; Muthu et al., 2012a; Korhonen and Dahlbo, 2007).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Life cycle energy and GHG emissions of PET recycling: change-oriented effects
Shen, L., Nieuwlaar, E., Worrell, E., et al. (2011) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0296-4 · Cited by 121
Recycling in buildings: an LCA case study of a thermal insulation panel made of polyester fiber, recycled from post-consumer PET bottles
Intini, F., & Kühtz, S. (2011) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0267-9 · Cited by 116
Optimization of greenhouse gas emissions in second-hand consumer product recovery through reuse platforms
Fortuna, L. M., & Diyamandoglu, V. (2017) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2017.04.032 · Cited by 114 · cited 12×
“In contrast, Fortuna and Diyamandoglu (2017) found that low replacement rates can, under certain conditions, make textile reuse an environmentally inferior alternative compared to both incineration and recycling.”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Allocation rule for open-loop recycling in life cycle assessment
Klöpffer, W. (1996) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1007/bf02978629 · Cited by 89 · cited 1×
“…to when the material from a product is recycled and used in a (more or less) identical product, whereas open-loop recycling (also called cascade recycling) refers to processes in which the material from a product is recycled and used in another product (Ekvall and Finnveden, 2001; Kl€opffer, 1996).”
Background
The European Commission Organisation Environmental Footprint method: comparison with other methods, and rationales for key requirements
Pelletier, N. L., Allacker, K., Pant, R., & Manfredi, S. (2013) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0609-x · Cited by 87 · cited 1×
“…that has existed for many years (Ekvall, 1994) and has received a regulatory boost from the publication of the BP X 30-323-0 standard by the French government and its inclusion in the EC's Operational Environmental Footprint guidelines (EC, 2013)e see Pelletier et al. (2014) for a discussion.”
Background
Ecolabels as drivers of clothing design
Clancy, G., Fröling, M., & Peters, G. M. (2015) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.086 · Cited by 75 · cited 1×
“…or the studies of textile reuse and recycling are driven by an interest or curiosity to increase knowledge, rather than to support specific informational needs, such as the data required by ecolabelling schemes (Clancy et al., 2015) or green public procurement decisions (Hall et al., 2016).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Climate impact assessment in life cycle assessments of forest products: implications of method choice for results and decision-making
Røyne, F., Peñaloza, D., Sandin, G., Berlin, J., & Svanström, M. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.009 · Cited by 75 · cited 1×
“Global Warming Potential with a 100 year time horizon (GWP100) is most often the employed characterisation method for climate change, which is consistent with LCAs of other product categories (e.g., as concluded in the literature review of forest product LCAs by Røyne et al. (2016)).”
MethodSelf-citation
Recyclability Potential Index (RPI): The concept and quantification of RPI for textile fibres
Muthu, S. S., Li, Y., Hu, J., & Mok, P. Y. (2011) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.10.003 · Cited by 70 · cited 6×
“As climate change is also considered in all remaining publications except two e Sahni et al. (2010) and AITEX (2007) e it is by far the most studied impact category or inventory indicator.”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Use of recycled natural fibres in industrial products: A comparative LCA case study on acoustic components in the Brazilian automotive sector
Pegoretti, T. D. S., Mathieux, F., Evrard, D., Brissaud, D., & Arruda, J. R. D. F. (2014) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12.010 · Cited by 70 · cited 1×
“…that has existed for many years (Ekvall, 1994) and has received a regulatory boost from the publication of the BP X 30-323-0 standard by the French government and its inclusion in the EC's Operational Environmental Footprint guidelines (EC, 2013)e see Pelletier et al. (2014) for a discussion.”
Background
Comparisons of four categories of waste recycling in China’s paper industry based on physical input–output life-cycle assessment model
Liang, S., Zhang, T., & Xu, Y. (2012) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.020 · Cited by 67 · cited 3×
“The exception is Liang et al. (2012), who study the environmental impact of paper produced from various waste materials and conclude that textile waste is a questionable feedstock compared to other waste materials (for the technological pathways studied).”
BackgroundInfluential
Gaining benefits from discarded textiles
Schmidt, A., Watson, D., Roos, S., Askham, C., & Poulsen, P. B. (2016) · TemaNord · doi:10.6027/tn2016-537 · Cited by 67 · cited 8×
“Among the studies that do elaborate on the use of the results, national policy development is a frequent theme (see, e.g., Fortuna and Diyamandoglu, 2017; Schmidt et al., 2016; €Ostlund et al., 2015; Corsten et al., 2013; Palm et al., 2013; Fisher, 2006; Fisher et al., 2006).”
BackgroundInfluential
The potential contribution of sustainable waste management to energy use and greenhouse gas emission reduction in the Netherlands
Corsten, M., Worrell, E., Rouw, M., & van Duin, A. (2013) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.04.002 · Cited by 65 · cited 4×
“When reuse and recycling are both considered, the former is found to be more beneficial than the latter (Dahlbo et al., 2017; Schmidt et al., 2016; Zamani et al., 2015; Beton et al., 2014; Corsten et al., 2013; Palm et al., 2013; Farrant et al., 2010; McGill, 2009; Bartl, 2009), except for under certain circumstances…”
BackgroundInfluential
Chemical and ultrastructural changes in cotton cellulose induced by laundering and textile use
Palme, A., Idström, A., Nordstierna, L., & Brelid, H. (2014) · Cellulose · doi:10.1007/s10570-014-0434-9 · Cited by 64 · cited 1×
“As the length of the fibres and the constituent molecules are reduced by wear and laundry (Palme et al., 2014), fabric and fibre recycling typically yields materials of lower quality (if quality is defined in terms of fibre quality) than materials made from virgin fibres (unless mixed with yarn…”
Background
The Efficiency of Informality: Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Reductions from Informal Recycling in Bogotá, Colombia
Vergara, S. E., Damgaard, A., & Gomez, D. (2015) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/jiec.12257 · Cited by 62 · cited 2×
“A common type of a streamlined LCA is those focussing solely on climate impact, i.e. carbon footprints (see Yasin et al., 2016; Vergara et al., 2016; Glew et al., 2012; Muthu et al., 2012a; Korhonen and Dahlbo, 2007).”
Global Consumption of Flame Retardants and Related Environmental Concerns: A Study on Possible Mechanical Recycling of Flame Retardant Textiles
Yasin, S., Behary, N., Curti, M., & Rovero, G. (2016) · Fibers · doi:10.3390/fib4020016 · Cited by 57 · cited 3×
“A common type of a streamlined LCA is those focussing solely on climate impact, i.e. carbon footprints (see Yasin et al., 2016; Vergara et al., 2016; Glew et al., 2012; Muthu et al., 2012a; Korhonen and Dahlbo, 2007).”
Background
Is Unbleached Cotton Better Than Bleached? Exploring the Limits of Life-Cycle Assessment in the Textile Sector
Roos, S., Posner, S., Jönsson, C., et al. (2015) · Clothing and Textiles Research Journal · doi:10.1177/0887302x15576404 · Cited by 55
Self-citation
Greening the Street-Level Procurer: Challenges in the Strongly Decentralized Swedish System
Hall, P., Löfgren, K., & Peters, G. M. (2015) · Journal of Consumer Policy · doi:10.1007/s10603-015-9282-8 · Cited by 51 · cited 1×
“…or the studies of textile reuse and recycling are driven by an interest or curiosity to increase knowledge, rather than to support specific informational needs, such as the data required by ecolabelling schemes (Clancy et al., 2015) or green public procurement decisions (Hall et al., 2016).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
How do end of life scenarios influence the environmental impact of product supply chains? comparing biomaterial and petrochemical products
Glew, D., Stringer, L. C., Acquaye, A. A., & McQueen‐Mason, S. J. (2012) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.005 · Cited by 48 · cited 1×
“A common type of a streamlined LCA is those focussing solely on climate impact, i.e. carbon footprints (see Yasin et al., 2016; Vergara et al., 2016; Glew et al., 2012; Muthu et al., 2012a; Korhonen and Dahlbo, 2007).”
Background
Environmental assessment of Swedish fashion consumption. Five garments – sustainable futures.
Roos, S., Sandin, G., Zamani, B., et al. (2015) · Chalmers Publication Library (Chalmers University of Technology) · doi:10.13140/rg.2.1.3084.9120 · Cited by 46
Self-citation
Measuring sustainability in cotton farming systems: towards a guidance framework.
Production, P., & Division, P. (2015) · Cited by 42
Will Clothing Be Sustainable? Clarifying Sustainable Fashion
Roos, S., Sandin, G., Zamani, B., Peters, G. M., & Svanström, M. (2016) · Textile science and clothing technology · doi:10.1007/978-981-10-2182-4_1 · Cited by 35 · cited 2×
“…of the production of virgin conventional cotton has been shown to be an important environmental gain of textile reuse (Dahlbo et al., 2017; Roos et al., 2017; Sahni et al., 2010; Woolridge et al., 2006) and recycling (EsteveTurrillas and de la Guardia, 2017; Yasin et al., 2016; €Ostlund…”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Towards a Nordic textile strategy
Palm, D., Elander, M., Watson, D., Kiørboe, N., Salmenperä, H., Dahlbo, H., Moliis, K., Lyng, K.-A., Valente, C., Gíslason, S., et al. (2014) · doi:10.6027/tn2014-538 · Cited by 25 · cited 2×
“…examples are Germany, in which about 70% of disposed textiles are collected for reuse and recycling, whereof a fraction is separated for incineration (Textile Recycling Association, 2005), and Denmark, in which about 50% is collected, mainly for reuse domestically or abroad (Palm et al., 2014).”
Background
The Top 100 Cited Articles in Essential Tremor
Benito‐León, J., & Louis, E. D. (2013) · Tremor and Other Hyperkinetic Movements · doi:10.5334/tohm.128 · Cited by 18
The Top 100 Cited Articles in Essential Tremor
Benito-León, J., & Louis, E. (2013) · Tremor and Other Hyperkinetic Movements · doi:10.7916/d8tm78vv · Cited by 16
Environmental Assessment of Textile Material Recovery Techniques : Examining Textile Flows in Sweden
Youhanan, L. (2013) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · Cited by 8
ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT IN THE PRODUCTION OF RECYCLED WOOL
Bònoli, A., Bamonti, S., & Spinelli, R. (2016) · Environmental Engineering and Management Journal · doi:10.30638/eemj.2016.207 · Cited by 8
Modelling of materials policies
Gielen, D. J., & Moriguchi, Y. (2002) · Environmental Modeling & Assessment · doi:10.1023/a:1020962804172 · Cited by 5 · cited 1×
“The exception is Liang et al. (2012), who study the environmental impact of paper produced from various waste materials and conclude that textile waste is a questionable feedstock compared to other waste materials (for the technological pathways studied).”
Background
To Reuse or to Incinerate? : A case study of the environmental impacts of two alternative waste management strategies for household textile waste in nine municipalities in northern Stockholm, Sweden
Bodin, R. (2016) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · Cited by 2
Evaluating the impact of closed loop supply chains on Nike's environmental performance and costs
Hagoort, S. S. (2013) · Cited by 2

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

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

Sorted by citations

The environmental price of fast fashion
Niinimäki, K., Peters, G., Dahlbo, H., Perry, P., Rissanen, T., & Gwilt, A. (2020) · Nature Reviews Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43017-020-0039-9 · Cited by 2,034
Self-citation
Lead Toxicity: Health Hazards, Influence on Food Chain, and Sustainable Remediation Approaches
Kumar, A., Kumar, A., Cabral-Pinto, M. M. S., Chaturvedi, A. K., Shabnam, A. A., Subrahmanyam, G., Mondal, R., Gupta, D. K., Malyan, S. K., Kumar, S. S., et al. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17072179 · Cited by 1,025
“The selection criteria/rules were adopted and modified from Sandin and Peters [10].”
Method
Exploring Industry 4.0 technologies to enable circular economy practices in a manufacturing context
Nascimento, D. L. D. M., Alencastro, V., Quelhas, O. L. G., Caiado, R. G. G., Garza‐Reyes, J. A., Rocha-Lona, L., & Tortorella, G. L. (2018) · Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management · doi:10.1108/jmtm-03-2018-0071 · Cited by 907
Death by waste: Fashion and textile circular economy case
Shirvanimoghaddam, K., Motamed, B., Ramakrishna, S., et al. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137317 · Cited by 669
The circular economy in the textile and apparel industry: A systematic literature review
Jia, F., Yin, S., Chen, L., & Chen, X. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120728 · Cited by 744

See all 1,087

Authors: Sandin, G., & Peters, G. M.
Affiliations: RISE Research Institutes of Sweden (SE)
Corresponding author: Sandin, Gustav
ORCID: Sandin, Gustav
Venue: Journal of Cleaner Production
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Published: 2018-05
Volume: 184
Pages: 353-365
ISSN: 0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.266
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: hybrid
doi.org
Licence: cc-by
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
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

Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling – A review

Abstract

Overview

AI snapshot

TL;DR

Key findings

Methods

Limitations

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Self-check

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks