Cited by 173Environmental Impact and SustainabilityMicroplastics and Plastic PollutionPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts

Natural or Synthetic—How Global Trends in Textile Usage Threaten Freshwater Environments

Open access
Stone, Catherine, Windsor, Fredric M., Munday, Max, Durance, Isabelle·2020·Science of The Total Environment

Abstract

As the global demand for textiles increases, so to do the potential environmental impacts that stem from their production, use and disposal. Freshwater ecosystems are particularly at risk: rivers often act as the primary recipients of waste generated during the production of textiles and are subject to pollutants released during the broader lifecycle of a textile product. Here, we investigate how global technological and societal processes shape the way we produce, use and dispose of textiles, and what this means for the environmental quality and ecological health of freshwaters. We examine two predominant 'natural' and synthetic textiles (wool and Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), respectively), and find that risks to freshwater ecosystems vary throughout the lifecycle of these textiles; and across geographies, in-line with regulatory and economic landscapes. Woollen textiles pose most risk during the Production Phase, while PET textiles pose most risk during the Use and Disposal Phases. Our findings show that: (i) both 'natural' and synthetic textiles present substantial challenges for freshwater environments; and (ii) bespoke solutions are needed in areas of the world where the global division of labour and less stringent environmental regulations have concentrated textile production; but also in regions where high textile consumption combines with unsustainable disposal behaviours. Effective mitigation may combine technological advances with societal changes in market mechanisms, regulations, textile use and disposal.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134689

Cites

97 of 97 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The degradation of natural and semisynthetic fibers causes the release of toxics adsorbed (e.g., textile dyes) to the surface into the environment.

    “Moreover, the degradation of natural and semisynthetic fibers causes the release of toxics adsorbed (i.e., textile dyes) to the surface into the environment [90,91].”

    From Is Wild Marine Biota Affected by Microplastics? (2022) · cites this paper as [91]

    Section 2.3, “Potential impacts from the fate of textiles” (page unavailable), says digestion of natural fibres by aquatic organisms may release chemicals adsorbed onto them. It frames this as a concern, not an established consequence of degradation, and does not extend the point to semisynthetic fibres or identify textile dyes as the chemicals released. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 98 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Duffield, P.A., Wimbush, J.M., Demot, P.F.A., 1990. Wool dyeing with environmentally acceptable levels of chromium in effluent. In: Crawshaw, G. H. (ed.) Proceedings of the 8th International Wool Textile Research Conference. Christchurch, New Zealand.
  2. Udakhe, J., Honade, S., Shrivastava, N., 2011. Recent advances in shrinkproofing of wool. Journal of the Textile Association 72, 171-179.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stone, C., Windsor, F. M., Munday, M., & Durance, I.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Durance, Isabelle
Venue
Science of The Total Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-05
Volume
718
Pages
134689
ISSN
0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2990757608
Cited by
173
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 4
FWCI
6.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Science of The Total Environment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council (1642617, NE/L002434/, L002434)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
Keywords
textile industry, freshwater ecosystems, wool, polyethylene terephthalate, synthetic textiles, natural textiles, textile waste, environmental risk assessment, life cycle assessment, environmental regulation, international division of labor, river pollution, sustainable consumption

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