Life cycle assessment for reuse/recycling of donated waste textiles compared to use of virgin material: an UK energy saving perspective
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
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.
“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.”
From Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling – A review (2018) · cites this paper as Woolridge et al., 2006
Cites
Rebitzer, G., Ekvall, T., Frischknecht, R., Hunkeler, D., Norris, G., Rydberg, T., Schmidt, W.-P., Suh, S., Weidema, B. P., & Pennington, D. W. (2004) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2003.11.005 · Cited by 2,753 · see citing works
Life cycle assessment of food waste management options
Lundie, S., & Peters, G. M. (2005) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.02.020 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
Petersen, A. K., & Solberg, B. (2005) · Forest Policy and Economics · doi:10.1016/s1389-9341(03)00063-7 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling – A review
Sandin, G., & Peters, G. M. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.266 · Cited by 1,087 · see citing works
“…cotton has been shown to be an important environmental gain of textile reuse (Dahlbo et al., 2017; Roos et al., 2017; Sahni et al., 2010; Woolridge et al., 2006) and recycling (EsteveTurrillas and de la Guardia, 2017; Yasin et al., 2016; €Ostlund et al., 2015; Muthu et al., 2012a;…”
BackgroundInfluential
- Authors
- Woolridge, A. C., Ward, G. D., Phillips, P. S., Collins, M., & Gandy, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Northampton (GB)
- The Salvation Army (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Woolridge, Anne C.
- ORCID
- Collins, Michael
- Venue
- Resources, Conservation and Recycling
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-01
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 94-103
- ISSN
- 0921-3449 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1969176296
- Cited by
- 258
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 2.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Resources Conservation and Recycling (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Municipal Solid Waste Management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Recycling and Waste Management Techniques
- Keywords
- textile recycling, energy consumption, energy footprint, polyesters, municipal solid waste, environmental load
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.
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
