A carbon footprint of textile recycling: a case study in Sweden
Abstract
Summary: Global population growth and rising living standards are increasing apparel consumption. Consequently, consumption of resources and generation of textile waste are increasing. According to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, textile consumption increased by 40% between the years 2000 and 2009 in Sweden. Given that there is currently no textile recycling plant in Sweden, the aim of this article is to explore the potential environmental benefits of various textile recycling techniques and thereby direct textile waste management strategies toward more sustainable options. Three different recycling techniques for a model waste consisting of 50% cotton and 50% polyester were identified and a life cycle assessment (LCA) was made to assess the environmental performance of them. The recycling processes are: material reuse of textile waste of adequate quality; separation of cellulose from polyester using N‐methylmorpholine‐N‐oxide as a solvent; and chemical recycling of polyester. These are compared to incineration, representing conventional textile waste treatment in Sweden. The results show that incineration has the highest global warming potential and primary energy usage. The material reuse process exhibits the best performance of the studied systems, with savings of 8 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 ‐eq) and 164 gigajoules (GJ) of primary energy per tonne of textile waste. Sensitivity analyses showed that results are particularly sensitive to the considered yields of the processes and to the choice of replaced products. An integration of these recycling technologies for optimal usage of their different features for treatment of 1 tonne of textile waste shows that 10 tonnes CO 2 ‐eq and 169 GJ of primary energy could be saved.
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?
Data from Zamani et al. (2015) has subsequently been used as input to Dahlbo et al. (2017) and Fortuna and Diyamandoglu (2017), thus reproducing the uncertainties.
“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.”
From Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling – A review (2018) · cites this paper as Zamani et al. (2015)
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.
“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.”
From Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling – A review (2018) · cites this paper as Zamani et al. (2015)
The modelling of cellulose polymer recycling in Östlund et al. (2015) and Zamani et al. (2015) is based on rough estimates due to a lack of available data, resulting in relatively uncertain results.
“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.”
From Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling – A review (2018) · cites this paper as Zamani et al. (2015)
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
“Among more recent work, Zamani et al. (2015) and Beton et al. (2014) stand out, with 6 citations each.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSelf-citation
- Authors
- Zamani, B., Svanström, M., Peters, G., & Rydberg, T.
- Affiliations
- Chalmers University of Technology (SE)
- IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Zamani, Bahareh
- Venue
- Journal of Industrial Ecology
- Published
- 2014-11-05
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 676-687
- ISSN
- 1088-1980 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-9290
- OpenAlex
- W2148840001
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 3.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Industrial Ecology (publishedVersion)
- Chalmers Publication Library (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) (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, textile waste management, carbon footprint, cotton-polyester blends, cellulose extraction, material reuse, incineration, global warming potential, primary energy 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
