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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
54 Own result · 37 Own interpretation · 26 No basis given · 17 Sources not found · 11 No full text of the sources · 11 Not checked yet · 1 Supported · 1 Partly supported · 1 Own method · 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 supportedcites Palme et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
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
- Supportedcites Palme et al., 2017 source
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)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fibre recycling is the most studied recycling type (57%), followed by polymer/oligomer recycling (37%), monomer recycling (29%), and fabric recycling (14%).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fibre recycling is the most studied recycling type (57%), followed by polymer/oligomer recycling (37%), monomer recycling (29%), and fabric recycling (14%).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The studies do, however, expose scenarios under which reuse and recycling are not beneficial for certain environmental impacts.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All 41 publications are either a full LCA or a streamlined/partial LCA, or use LCA data as input.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.4. Methods used in publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In publications of recycling, fibre recycling is the most studied recycling type (57%), followed by polymer/oligomer recycling (37%), monomer recycling (23%), and fabric recycling (14%).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.1. Overview of publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In most of these cases, the presumably replaced production processes, and sometimes also recycling processes, are assumed to be located in Asia.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.3. Aims and scopes of publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In publications of recycling, fibre recycling is the most studied recycling type (57%), followed by polymer/oligomer recycling (37%), monomer recycling (23%), and fabric recycling (14%).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.1. Overview of publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Among the studies that do elaborate on the use of the results, national policy development is a frequent theme”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.3. Aims and scopes of publications
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The moving 5 year-average elucidates a steadily increasing number of publications per year, from about 1.5 a decade ago to about 4.5 in recent years.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.2. Trends over time
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, the aim is commonly described as what is done in the study, rather than why it is done and the intended use of the results.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.3. Aims and scopes of publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most commonly stated aim is some version of”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.3. Aims and scopes of publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition to these five publications, 11 studies cover only climate impact and one or two inventory-level indicators (energy and/or water use).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.4. Methods used in publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All publications employing several replacement rates have found that the choice of replacement rate influences results considerably.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.5. Allocation procedures and replacement rates
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most studies assume a 1:1 replacement rate without justification, which is problematic.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.5. Allocation procedures and replacement rates
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A common type of a streamlined LCA is those focussing solely on climate impact, i.e. carbon footprints”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.4. Methods used in publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In publications of recycling, fibre recycling is the most studied recycling type (57%), followed by polymer/oligomer recycling (37%), monomer recycling (23%), and fabric recycling (14%).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.1. Overview of publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Allocation procedures of many kinds have been employed in the reviewed publications, including the use of system expansion, cutoffs and mass and economic allocation.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.5. Allocation procedures and replacement rates
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cotton is the most studied material (covered in 76% of the studies) both for studies of reuse and recycling, followed by polyester (63%), also counting bottle-to-fibre recycling, viscose (25%) and wool (20%).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.1. Overview of publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cotton is the most studied material (covered in 76% of the studies) both for studies of reuse and recycling, followed by polyester (63%), also counting bottle-to-fibre recycling, viscose (25%) and wool (20%).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.1. Overview of publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cotton is the most studied material (covered in 76% of the studies) both for studies of reuse and recycling, followed by polyester (63%), also counting bottle-to-fibre recycling, viscose (25%) and wool (20%).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.1. Overview of publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, land use or land transformation has only been considered in three of the reviewed publications.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“followed by water use/consumption/depletion (14)”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The second most studied impact category, or rather inventory indicator, is total energy use (i.e., not distinguishing between renewable and non-renewable energy use), which is studied in 18 publications.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is covered in 39 out of 41 studies, with the second most studied indicator being energy use, covered in 18 studies.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 4. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All reviewed publications except one indicate potential environmental benefits with textile reuse and/or recycling.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.8. Findings e the environmental potential of textile reuse and recycling
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“human toxicity (of some kind; 10)”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Often a 1:1 rate is assumed, but there is a need for studies on actual replacement rates for textile reuse and recycling, and to apply such replacement rates in assessments of textile reuse and recycling.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 4. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, it should be noted that collection and/or sorting of textile waste were fully or partly excluded in about half of the studies.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.8. Findings e the environmental potential of textile reuse and recycling
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Global Warming Potential with a 100 year time horizon (GWP100) is most often the employed characterisation method for climate change”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“particulate matter formation (5)”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thirteen other impact categories/inventory indicators have been studied in three or less publications.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Moreover, Shen et al. (2012) show that the choice of allocation method for handling open-loop recycling can strongly influence the preference of a recycled fibre compared to a virgin fibre.”
§ 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 Shen et al., 2012 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“abiotic depletion (6)”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Climate change is by far the most studied impact category.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 4. Conclusions
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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).”
§ 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 Liang et al., 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Shen et al. (2012) show that recycled fibres do not necessarily have lower environmental impact compared to all types of virgin fibres.”
§ 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 Shen et al., 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Europe (especially the Nordic countries) is over-represented in terms of geographical scopes.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 4. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“now-renewable energy use (6)”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As mentioned in the above discussion about methods employed, several studies are limited to only considering the impact category of climate change.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ecotoxicity (of some kind; 12)”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is covered in 39 out of 41 studies, with the second most studied indicator being energy use, covered in 18 studies.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 4. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The number of publications has increased over time, from about 1.5 per year a decade ago to about 4.5 per year in recent years.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 4. Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“€ Ostlund et al. (2015) show that under certain assumptions, there is a risk that textile recycling causes certain types of environmental impacts to increase.”
§ 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 matchedcites Östlund et al., 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The literature also exposes scenarios under which textile reuse and recycling are not environmentally beneficial.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.8. Findings e the environmental potential of textile reuse and recycling
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It should be noted that in studies where a credit for replaced production is not directly assigned to the studied product, a comparison is still often made with a (presumably) functionally equivalent product made from virgin resources.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.5. Allocation procedures and replacement rates
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As indicated in Table 2, only 10 of the 41 reviewed studies contain primary data on reuse or recycling processes.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.9. Gaps and further research
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Data from the latter has subsequently been used as input to the studies of Dahlbo et al. (2017) and Fortuna and Diyamandoglu (2017), thus reproducing the uncertainties.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.9. Gaps and further research
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there is a need for more detailed studies, including the generation of updated and publicly available primary inventory data, particularly for collection and sorting processes (which are often excluded) and for monomer and polymer recycling processes.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.9. Gaps and further research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Similarly, the modelling of cellulose polymer recycling in € Ostlund et al. (2015) and Zamani et al. (2015) are based on some rough estimates (due to a lack of available data), resulting in relatively uncertain results.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.9. Gaps and further research
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites € Ostlund et al. (2015)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zamani et al. (2015) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
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
“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.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Also, for reuse, induced customer transport may cause environmental impact that exceeds the benefits of avoided production, unless the use phase is sufficiently extended.”
- Also stated in: § 4. Conclusions · hedged
“Also, for reuse, induced customer transport may cause environmental impact that exceeds the benefits of avoided production, unless the use phase is sufficiently extended.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4. Conclusions · hedged
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
“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.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“For recycling, a 1:1 replacement rate may be more realistic, at least for fibres produced via polymer/oligomer or monomer recycling, as the fibres are of quality comparable to fibres from virgin resources.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.5. Allocation procedures and replacement rates
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“There are also numerous non-technical barriers for increased textile recycling (Elander and Ljungkvist, 2016).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1.2. Current status of textile reuse and recycling
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Elander and Ljungkvist, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
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
“but to find LCA elements in all reviewed studies indicate a consensus that LCA or some element of LCA is necessary for quantifying the environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.4. Methods used in publications
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For most categories of environmental impacts, later stages in the textile production process give rise to even larger impacts (Roos et al., 2015a).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Roos et al., 2015a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
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 matchedcites Roos et al., 2015b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
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
“To some extent, the dominance of the UK and the Nordic countries could be explained by the languages considered in the review: English and Swedish.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.3. Aims and scopes of publications
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Thus fabric and fibre recycling are typically considered to be downcycling (at least in terms of fibre quality e in terms of other qualities of the end product, such as aesthetics, fit-forpurpose or material qualities defined by fabric construction rather than fibre quality, certain end products made from recycled fibres or fabrics may still be considered upcycled).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1.1. A topology of textile reuse and recycling
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 reduces the reliability of the evidence which these studies show for the environmental advantages of textile reuse and recycling.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.5. Allocation procedures and replacement rates
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“For reuse, a 1:1 replacement rate presumes that the new owner of the reused item uses the item as many times as the owner would have used a brand new item, which has been shown to be unrealistic”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.5. Allocation procedures and replacement rates
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Clothing and home textiles are downcycled into, for example, industrial rags, low-grade blankets, insulation materials and upholstery (Schmidt et al., 2016).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1.1. A topology of textile reuse and recycling
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schmidt et al., 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
- Not matchedcites € Ostlund et al., 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
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
“Our interpretation is that the life cycle perspective is widely viewed as essential for capturing the environmentally relevant consequences of textile reuse and recycling”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.4. Methods used in publications
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Today, existing textile recycling routes are in most cases downcycling.Clothing and home textiles are downcycled into, for example, industrial rags, low-grade blankets, insulation materials and upholstery (Schmidt et al., 2016).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1.1. A topology of textile reuse and recycling
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schmidt et al., 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The calculation of the benefits of substitution depends on to what extent production is replaced (the replacement rate/factor).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.5. Allocation procedures and replacement rates
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“The target is not yet met, but if recovery rates for used textiles increase significantly, the issue of fibre length may become more problematic for subsequent use cycles.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.5. Allocation procedures and replacement rates
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Also, comparisons based on items rather than mass (e.g., a Tshirt made by recycled fibres vs. a T-shirt made by virgin fibres) often presumes a 1:1 replacement rate, unless the functional unit is related to the use of the item and the number of uses is assumed to differ between the compared items.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.5. Allocation procedures and replacement rates
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 4. Conclusions
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“So whether a 1:1 replacement rate is a good enough approximation depends on the price elasticity of demand for textile fibres.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.5. Allocation procedures and replacement rates
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Such mass-based comparisons inherently presume a 1:1 replacement rate.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.5. Allocation procedures and replacement rates
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Thus, the literature strongly supports the waste management options preferred according to the waste hierarchy, as promoted by, among others, the EU directive on waste (EC, 2008).”
§ 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 matchedcites EC, 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In other words, some of the benefits of textile recycling might be counteracted by increased consumption (a”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.5. Allocation procedures and replacement rates
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gielen and Moriguchi, 2002 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Because of the strong focus on climate change, there is a risk that many studies have not managed to identify all the major environmental gains and losses of textile reuse and recycling.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Nonetheless, the common exclusion of collection and sorting indicates that several studies have underestimated the environmental impact of reuse and recycling systems.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.8. Findings e the environmental potential of textile reuse and recycling
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Collection and sorting of textile waste have non-negligible environmental impact.
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
“Assumptions about the replaced production of new products influence results considerably, thus the choice of replacement rate is crucial.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 4. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 4. Conclusions
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“as the potential avoidance 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 (Esteve-Turrillas and de la Guardia, 2017;Yasin et al., 2016;€ Ostlund et al., 2015;Muthu et al., 2012a;Allwood et al., 2006)”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dahlbo et al., 2017 source
- Not matchedcites Roos et al., 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Sahni et al., 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“So the reviewed literature provides strong support for the claim that textile reuse and recycling are, in general, preferable waste management options compared to incineration and landfilling.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.8. Findings e the environmental potential of textile reuse and recycling
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.8. Findings e the environmental potential of textile reuse and recycling
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The benefits of reuse and recycling are mainly due to the avoidance of the manufacturing of new products.
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
“Also, in scenarios where the overall environmental impact is indeed reduced, there is a risk of problem shifting between geographical regions.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.8. Findings e the environmental potential of textile reuse and recycling
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Benefits mainly arise because of the assumed avoidance of production of new products.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 4. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 40
- It may state two separate claims as one. 38
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fibre recycling is the most studied recycling type (57%), followed by polymer/oligomer recycling (37%), monomer recycling (29%), and fabric recycling (14%).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Forty-one studies were reviewed, whereof 85% deal with recycling and 41% with reuse (27% cover both reuse and recycling).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cotton (76%) and polyester (63%) are the most studied materials.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fibre recycling is the most studied recycling type (57%), followed by polymer/oligomer recycling (37%), monomer recycling (29%), and fabric recycling (14%).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Forty-one studies were reviewed, whereof 85% deal with recycling and 41% with reuse (27% cover both reuse and recycling).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cotton (76%) and polyester (63%) are the most studied materials.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Forty-one studies were reviewed, whereof 85% deal with recycling and 41% with reuse (27% cover both reuse and recycling).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Forty-one studies were reviewed, whereof 85% deal with recycling and 41% with reuse (27% cover both reuse and recycling).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The rules for selecting literature described in the method section of this paper generated a list of 41 publications: 21 peerreviewed papers and 20 other types of publications (see Table 1).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.1. Overview of publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thirty, or 73%, of the studies concern reuse/recycling of waste generated in Europe, in which the Nordic countries (10 studies), the UK (7) and Italy (4) dominate.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.3. Aims and scopes of publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As publications often cover both reuse and recycling, or several types of recycling, the number of publications in Fig. 4 exceeds the total number of publications (as shown in Fig. 3).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.2. Trends over time
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the most frequent allocation methods encountered in our review are cut-off allocation for recycled input materials and system expansion for reused products and products made from recycled materials.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.5. Allocation procedures and replacement rates
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It can be noted that it is quite common to study both reuse and recycling in the same publication (29% of publications).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.1. Overview of publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To date, no review of such studies has been published in the academic literature or elsewhere”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1. Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cotton is the most studied material (covered in 76% of the studies) both for studies of reuse and recycling, followed by polyester (63%), also counting bottle-to-fibre recycling, viscose (25%) and wool (20%).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.1. Overview of publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Still, there are more studies written in the English language exploring recycling in Sweden (7) than in the USA (3), an English-speaking country with about 30 times larger population than Sweden.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.3. Aims and scopes of publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In publications of recycling, fibre recycling is the most studied recycling type (57%), followed by polymer/oligomer recycling (37%), monomer recycling (23%), and fabric recycling (14%).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.1. Overview of publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More publications deal with recycling (85%) than with reuse (44%).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.1. Overview of publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, authors most often assume that the material input to recycling systems is a waste free of environmental burdens, and that reused products and products made from recycled materials substitute functionally equivalent products made from virgin fibres.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.5. Allocation procedures and replacement rates
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are no substantial differences between peer-reviewed and other types of publications with regard to the studied material type.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.1. Overview of publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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 matchedcites Allwood et al., 2006
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ionising radiation (4)”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fibre recycling is the most studied recycling type (57%), followed by polymer/oligomer recycling (37%), monomer recycling (23%), and fabric recycling (14%).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 4. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 matchedcites Sahni et al., 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites AITEX, 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of critical methodological assumptions, authors most often assume that textiles sent to recycling are wastes free of environmental burden (i.e., cut-off allocation) and that reused products and products made from recycled materials replace products made from virgin fibres (i.e., system expansion).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 4. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Related to the choice of replacement rate, is the common assumption that the recycled fibre only gets one additional use cycle.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.5. Allocation procedures and replacement rates
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“In their case, it was shown that climate impact can increase if recycling processes are powered by fossil energy and/or if virgin cotton as a consequence is assumed to be replaced, as cotton is a fibre associated with relatively low climate impact.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.8. Findings e the environmental potential of textile reuse and recycling
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on the selection criteria (see section 2.1), we found 41 publications, whereof 21 are peer-reviewed and 20 are other types of publications.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 4. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“photochemical oxidant formation (12)”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cotton is the most studied material (76%), followed by polyester (63%), viscose (25%) and wool (20%).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 4. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ozone layer depletion (9)”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notably, peer-reviewed publications have, on average, more citations: about 0.8 citations per year, compared to 0.4 for publications not subject to peer-review (accounting for studies published before 2016).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.7. Linkages between studies and citations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eighty-five percent of the publications deal with recycling, 44% with reuse, and 29% with both reuse and recycling.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 4. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and waste (in kg; 4)”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Six publications include some kind of weighting”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Acidification (of some kind) and eutrophication (of some kind) are studied in 17 publications each”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, there is a lack of studies exploring the limits of textile reuse and recycling, and the benefits of combining different types of reuse and recycling routes.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.9. Gaps and further research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. 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 matchedcites € Ostlund et al., 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, there is a lack of studies of future systems.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.9. Gaps and further research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 matchedcites Patagonia (2006)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The studies also expose scenarios under which reuse and recycling may not be beneficial, for example in cases of low replacement rates, if recycling processes are powered by fossil energy, or if the avoided production processes are relatively clean.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 4. Conclusions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Monomer and polymer recycling have been studied in several of the reviewed studies, but the modelling is sometimes based on rough estimates and/or old inventory data.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.9. Gaps and further research
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thirdly, as mentioned in section 3.5, there is a need for studies on actual replacement rates for textile reuse and recycling, for various markets and product types.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.9. Gaps and further research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Secondly, there is a lack of studies of the environmental potential of cascade systems designed to get the most out of a given virgin or recycled material.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.9. Gaps and further research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To conclude, the reviewed publications elucidate several potential stumbling blocks for achieving environmental benefits by increasing textile reuse and recycling.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.8. Findings e the environmental potential of textile reuse and recycling
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
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 matchedcites The Fiber Year Consulting, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Oerlikon, 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
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 matchedcites Lenzing, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
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 matchedcites FAO-ICAC, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 matchedcites FAO-ICAC, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The above percentages could be underestimates as at least one the studied reused/recycled materials is not specified in four of the publications, and information on the type of recycling is missing in six.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.1. Overview of publications
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Considering the low recycling rate today, there is a great potential to also increase recycling, particularly polymer, oligomer and monomer recycling, thereby preventing textile waste that cannot be reused or fabric/fibre-recycled from being landfilled or incinerated.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1.2. Current status of textile reuse and recycling
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. 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
“So from an LCA methodological perspective, either the aims are poorly phrased, 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”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.3. Aims and scopes of publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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 matchedcites Textile Recycling Association, 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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
“The high prevalence of fibre recycling is probably due to the fact that it is a relatively common recycling route, widely applied in commercial scale both in terms of downcycling (e.g. to insulation) and textile-to-textile recycling (e.g.re-spinning of new yarn from cotton or wool waste).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.1. Overview of publications
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 matchedcites Roos et al., 2015a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
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
“However, increased fibre production via recycling may increase total global fibre supply and thereby reduce the price and increase the demand for fibres.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.5. Allocation procedures and replacement rates
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
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
“Increased textile reuse and recycling could potentially reduce the production of virgin textile fibres and, in the case of reuse, also avoid engineering processes further downstream in the textile product life cycle, and thus reduce environmental impact.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 1. Introduction
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. 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
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 matchedcites Textile Recycling Association, 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
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
“In either case, this makes it difficult for us to generalise regarding the intended use of the publications and to what extent methods and scopes generally have been designed to fulfil the intended use.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.3. Aims and scopes of publications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 matchedcites Lenzing, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites The Fiber Year Consulting, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
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 matchedcites Allwood et al. (2006)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
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
“it is important to include impact categories corresponding to the environmental issues associated with conventional cotton, namely water depletion and toxicity”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
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
“and allocation based on fibre length may become an obvious alternative for analysts wishing to avoid the uncertainties associated with system expansion and replacement rates.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.5. Allocation procedures and replacement rates
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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
“Often only one or a few indicators are studied, introducing a risk that relevant impacts are missed, potentially contributing to problem shifting and sub-optimisation.”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 4. Conclusions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“While presumably unproblematic for monomer recycling scenarios, successive reduction in the fibre length of the recycled fabrics or fibres over multiple reuse or recycling life cycles would reduce the range of functions available to manufacturers”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.5. Allocation procedures and replacement rates
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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
“So the common narrow focus on climate change and energy use may not capture the real benefits of many types of textile reuse and recycling, thereby potentially contributing to problem shifting”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.6. Impact categories and inventory indicators
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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.”
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
“monomer recycling (29%)”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.1. Overview of publications
“monomer recycling (23%)”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
“Forty-one studies were reviewed, whereof 85% deal with recycling and 41% with reuse (27% cover both reuse and recycling).”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.1. Overview of publications
“More publications deal with recycling (85%) than with reuse (44%).”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > Abstract
“(27% cover both reuse and recycling)”
§ Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling e A review > 3.1. Overview of publications
“It can be noted that it is quite common to study both reuse and recycling in the same publication (29% of publications).”
Citations
Cites
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).”
BackgroundMicklin, 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).”
BackgroundInfluentialAllocation 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).”
BackgroundOpen-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.”
BackgroundInfluentialPutting 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,…”
BackgroundZamani, 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-citationWell 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.”
BackgroundInfluentialEnvironmental 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
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
Cited by
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-citationLead 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].”
MethodExploring 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
Metadata
- 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)
- 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
- 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
