DGL Feature: The textile industry and the environment
ECG Bulletin July 2024
The garment industry has been transformed in the last century. Clothing is no longer regarded just as a commodity for protection from the environment or to fulfil the requirements of human decency, but is now subject to the whims of fashion and therefore to be replaced as fashion changes. The result? In industrialised countries, overproduction of clothing, limited usage, and disposal to ever expanding, but scarce, landfill sites.
A Lenzing group report stated that only 8% of textile waste is recycled, with a potential 92% still ending up in landfill.[1] As a worrying example, 59,000 tons of garments are disposed in the Atacama Desert every year[2] and, in 2015, Greenpeace reported that Hong Kong disposes of 110,000 tonnes of textile products annually.[3]
In addition to the landfill contribution, in Europe, 42% of used textiles are discarded annually, and 80% of that is
incinerated with no other extended life option. 93 billion cubic metres of water are used for textile manufacturing,
and 20% of global wastewater is discharged by the fashion industry. A primary pollutant from textiles are microfibres – particularly microplastics. A single laundry of polyester clothes can discharge up to 700,000 microfibres, but polyester is not the only cause of microfibre pollution: cellulose-derived microfibres are also widely discovered in oceans due to textile degradation. Samples from the Galapagos had 12,300 microplastics per cubic metre (MP/m3) in sea water, of both polyester and cellulosic origin. The textile industry emits 121 million tons of CO2e per year, of which 80% is from manufacturing, and corresponds to 10% of total global emissions.
One of the primary impacts of natural fibres is on the land needed. 4% of global agricultural land is used to produce textile precursor fibres, mainly cotton. This does not seem significant, but climate change means that all arable land will be precious for food production, in the future. When examining the impacts of the textile industry, it is reasonable to expect that the production of new fibres should be moderate and somehow reduced, but the reality is otherwise. As a consequence of world population growth, the demand on textile fibres is expected to rise at an annual rate of approximately 3% until 2030[4]. For 2018, the global textile industry used 100 million tons of virgin fibres, of which approximately 60% were petroleum-based.[4] Production of cellulose-derived fibres has doubled in 10 years, from 3 million to 6 million tonnes. This demand on natural and fabricated cellulosic fibres is expected to continue to rise. The production of cotton, however, is not expected to meet this demand because of restrictions on farmland use and availability of irrigation water.
Anticipating the “cellulosic fibre gap’’[5]
The cellulosic fibre gap relates to the global viscose fibre output, which stood at over 5.3 million tons in 2016 and is still expected to grow in the future as one alternative to cotton.[6] The industry of petroleum-based textile fibres has experienced the same trend as cellulose-derived fibres, with an increase of 100% in 10 years and an annual production of 109 million tonnes in 2020, with polyesters such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) most common.[2] The same line is observed in the leather industry, in 2020, the global leather goods market was sized at USD 394.12 billion and was expected to continue growing.[7] However, the production of synthetic fibres in 2020 was affected by COVID-19. The pandemic caused a decrease in the production of every synthetic fibre compared to 2019 and, as such, the industry must be monitored for a number of years to determine if it will resume the same rate of growth, or if awareness of climate change has had an impact on how we consume and manufacture.
In countries where a collection infrastructure for garments is in place, the system is mainly designed to reuse, where the pieces are examined, separated, and inspected to assess the quality. Those pieces in good condition are sent to second-hand shops, charity shops, or shipped to less developed countries to be sold. Those in a poorer condition are shredded or used as rags. Recycling infrastructures are still limited, but emerging from laboratory to industrial scale. Some large brands and corporations have internal systems to recover and recycle their products but are mostly limited to cotton. In the case of leather, end-of-life options are significantly more limited, with waste usually disposed of in landfill or incinerated.[4,8] For every kilogram of virgin cotton displaced by second-hand clothing, ~65 kWh of electricity is saved, and for every kilogram of polyester, ~90 kWh. Therefore, the reuse and recycling of donated clothing has a much lower environmental burden compared with manufacture and sale of new clothing from virgin materials.[9]
The cellulosic fibre gap relates to the global viscose fibre output, which stood at over 5.3 million tons in 2016 and is still expected to grow in the future as one alternative to cotton.[6] The industry of petroleum-based textile fibres has experienced the same trend as cellulose-derived fibres, with an increase of 100% in 10 years and an annual production of 109 million tonnes in 2020, with polyesters such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) most common.[2] The same line is observed in the leather industry, in 2020, the global leather goods market was sized at USD 394.12 billion and was expected to continue growing.[7] However, the production of synthetic fibres in 2020 was affected by COVID-19. The pandemic caused a decrease in the production of every synthetic fibre compared to 2019 and, as such, the industry must be monitored for a number of years to determine if it will resume the same rate of growth, or if awareness of climate change has had an impact on how we consume and manufacture.
In countries where a collection infrastructure for garments is in place, the system is mainly designed to reuse, where the pieces are examined, separated, and inspected to assess the quality. Those pieces in good condition are sent to second-hand shops, charity shops, or shipped to less developed countries to be sold. Those in a poorer condition are shredded or used as rags. Recycling infrastructures are still limited, but emerging from laboratory to industrial scale. Some large brands and corporations have internal systems to recover and recycle their products but are mostly limited to cotton. In the case of leather, end-of-life options are significantly more limited, with waste usually disposed of in landfill or incinerated.[4,8] For every kilogram of virgin cotton displaced by second-hand clothing, ~65 kWh of electricity is saved, and for every kilogram of polyester, ~90 kWh. Therefore, the reuse and recycling of donated clothing has a much lower environmental burden compared with manufacture and sale of new clothing from virgin materials.[9]
Figure 1. Garment composition possibilities.
Recycling textile fibres
According to Directive 2008/98/EC (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2008), recycling is any recovery operation where waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials, or substances whether for the original use or for different purposes.[10] When recycling a material, there are two possibilities: to upcycle – when the product obtained by recycling is of higher value; or downcycle – when the product obtained by recycling is of lower value. To recycle, garments need to be disassembled into the different materials that compose the product. There are different techniques for material recycling: these can be mechanical, thermal, chemical, or biochemical recycling, including composting. Some authors consider incineration to obtain energy as another method of recycling, but in the context of this review, incineration is not considered as no valuable material is obtained, nor is natural, uncontrolled biodegradation.
In mechanical recycling, textiles are processed to produce smaller fibres. Materials and fibres that can be mechanically recycled include cotton, PET, and leather. Thermal recycling is limited to apply heat to melt fibres and reprocess them by extrusion, but never to incinerate to produce electricity. This can be applied to any thermoplastic material, such as PET and polyvinylchloride (PVC), most of which are petroleum-based. Some authors consider this as mechanical recycling.[11] Chemical recycling refers to chemical deconstruction, converting polymers into their primary monomers before repolymerising to produce the same, or a chemically modified polymer structure. This is commonly applicable to petroleum-based textiles. In addition, chemical recycling can also refer to dissolution and selective reprecipitation of fibres. This is more often applicable in natural fibres such as cellulose or cotton, producing mainly viscose.[12] Cellulose, cotton, viscose, polyurethanes (PU), polylactic acid (PLA), and nylon can be chemically recycled.
Biochemical recycling refers to depolymerisation or degradation via enzymes produced in a laboratory. Enzymes catalyse depolymerisation without the presence of microbial degradation[13], which is the first step in composting. Cellulose-derived fibres such as cotton, PLA and PU can be recycled by biochemical processes. The composting process releases valuable nutrients back into the soil, contributing to the growth of trees and plants. Composting is considered the most circular approach for end-of-life textile disposal according to Dame Ellen McArthur.[14,15] There are many different mineralisation approaches that exist within the natural environment. Different enzymes are secreted by a broad range of microorganisms including fungi, bacteria, and actinomycetes.[16]
An efficient recycling process is considered when: more than 90% of the material is recovered, the recycling rate is higher than 20%, and the final waste is less than 5%.[17] For mechanical recycling, the only way to have an effective process and obtain fibres with the same applicability of the raw material is to recycle materials composed entirely of the same fibre. When recycling a composite mechanically, the output is always a downcycle.
In thermal recycling, even the smallest contamination with a thermostable polymer can jeopardise the process. Chemical and biochemical recycling, meanwhile, opens up the possibility of upcycling to certain composite materials, through selective dissolution or enzymatic degradation. However, the recycling of blends has mainly been studied at laboratory scale, and no commercially viable separation, sorting, and recycling technologies are currently available for materials such as cotton and polyester blends.3 Garments are a complex mixture of materials and very often contain blended yarns or composites. Figure 1 shows the variety of organic fibres that can form part of a garment excluding any inorganic material. Mechanical recycling for complex compositions is therefore always a downcycle, or even not applicable, with most of the applications being related to insulation specifically for synthetic materials such as polyurethane leather (PU) and nylon when they are in a matrix that makes separation difficult.[18] The most studied fibres to be recycled are cotton and polyester, followed by viscose and wool, following the review by Sandin et al.[12], in terms of composites cow leather, polyvinylchloride (PVC) and PU are most common.
In a garment production process, there are several streams of waste, including from combing, cutting, and carding. Some of these fibres can be reintroduced to the process, some can be used as reinforcement, but others need to be recycled or degraded.[4] Recycling in general has been more applicable for synthetic fibres that can be introduced into the textile industry, but when discussing textile recycling, natural fibres are gaining the space with the development of new technologies to dissolve and convert cellulose, the primary component of natural fibres such as cotton and linen. The research on the recycling of natural fibres has also increased due to their intrinsic properties such as superior moisture absorption, breathability, and excellent mechanical properties compared to synthetic fibres.[6]
However, recycling is not the only solution, and reuse should be the first option for everyone. Ananas Anam produce textile fibres from pineapple harvest waste. These fibres are extracted from the leaves of the plant, that are completely cropped after two harvests. The leaves are a metre long, and the fibres have a similar chemical structure to that of flax, with good mechanical properties. This makes them an interesting solution for a wide range of applications. Valorising a waste eliminates an environmental impact: land competition for food, and also decreases the demand for water and other resources that virgin natural fibres need.
According to Directive 2008/98/EC (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2008), recycling is any recovery operation where waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials, or substances whether for the original use or for different purposes.[10] When recycling a material, there are two possibilities: to upcycle – when the product obtained by recycling is of higher value; or downcycle – when the product obtained by recycling is of lower value. To recycle, garments need to be disassembled into the different materials that compose the product. There are different techniques for material recycling: these can be mechanical, thermal, chemical, or biochemical recycling, including composting. Some authors consider incineration to obtain energy as another method of recycling, but in the context of this review, incineration is not considered as no valuable material is obtained, nor is natural, uncontrolled biodegradation.
In mechanical recycling, textiles are processed to produce smaller fibres. Materials and fibres that can be mechanically recycled include cotton, PET, and leather. Thermal recycling is limited to apply heat to melt fibres and reprocess them by extrusion, but never to incinerate to produce electricity. This can be applied to any thermoplastic material, such as PET and polyvinylchloride (PVC), most of which are petroleum-based. Some authors consider this as mechanical recycling.[11] Chemical recycling refers to chemical deconstruction, converting polymers into their primary monomers before repolymerising to produce the same, or a chemically modified polymer structure. This is commonly applicable to petroleum-based textiles. In addition, chemical recycling can also refer to dissolution and selective reprecipitation of fibres. This is more often applicable in natural fibres such as cellulose or cotton, producing mainly viscose.[12] Cellulose, cotton, viscose, polyurethanes (PU), polylactic acid (PLA), and nylon can be chemically recycled.
Biochemical recycling refers to depolymerisation or degradation via enzymes produced in a laboratory. Enzymes catalyse depolymerisation without the presence of microbial degradation[13], which is the first step in composting. Cellulose-derived fibres such as cotton, PLA and PU can be recycled by biochemical processes. The composting process releases valuable nutrients back into the soil, contributing to the growth of trees and plants. Composting is considered the most circular approach for end-of-life textile disposal according to Dame Ellen McArthur.[14,15] There are many different mineralisation approaches that exist within the natural environment. Different enzymes are secreted by a broad range of microorganisms including fungi, bacteria, and actinomycetes.[16]
An efficient recycling process is considered when: more than 90% of the material is recovered, the recycling rate is higher than 20%, and the final waste is less than 5%.[17] For mechanical recycling, the only way to have an effective process and obtain fibres with the same applicability of the raw material is to recycle materials composed entirely of the same fibre. When recycling a composite mechanically, the output is always a downcycle.
In thermal recycling, even the smallest contamination with a thermostable polymer can jeopardise the process. Chemical and biochemical recycling, meanwhile, opens up the possibility of upcycling to certain composite materials, through selective dissolution or enzymatic degradation. However, the recycling of blends has mainly been studied at laboratory scale, and no commercially viable separation, sorting, and recycling technologies are currently available for materials such as cotton and polyester blends.3 Garments are a complex mixture of materials and very often contain blended yarns or composites. Figure 1 shows the variety of organic fibres that can form part of a garment excluding any inorganic material. Mechanical recycling for complex compositions is therefore always a downcycle, or even not applicable, with most of the applications being related to insulation specifically for synthetic materials such as polyurethane leather (PU) and nylon when they are in a matrix that makes separation difficult.[18] The most studied fibres to be recycled are cotton and polyester, followed by viscose and wool, following the review by Sandin et al.[12], in terms of composites cow leather, polyvinylchloride (PVC) and PU are most common.
In a garment production process, there are several streams of waste, including from combing, cutting, and carding. Some of these fibres can be reintroduced to the process, some can be used as reinforcement, but others need to be recycled or degraded.[4] Recycling in general has been more applicable for synthetic fibres that can be introduced into the textile industry, but when discussing textile recycling, natural fibres are gaining the space with the development of new technologies to dissolve and convert cellulose, the primary component of natural fibres such as cotton and linen. The research on the recycling of natural fibres has also increased due to their intrinsic properties such as superior moisture absorption, breathability, and excellent mechanical properties compared to synthetic fibres.[6]
However, recycling is not the only solution, and reuse should be the first option for everyone. Ananas Anam produce textile fibres from pineapple harvest waste. These fibres are extracted from the leaves of the plant, that are completely cropped after two harvests. The leaves are a metre long, and the fibres have a similar chemical structure to that of flax, with good mechanical properties. This makes them an interesting solution for a wide range of applications. Valorising a waste eliminates an environmental impact: land competition for food, and also decreases the demand for water and other resources that virgin natural fibres need.
But who are Ananas Anam?
Ananas Anam is an innovative company that specialises in processing pineapple leaf fibres (PALF) into sustainable textile solutions. In all that we do, we consider the impact of our decisions on our workers, customers, suppliers, community and on the environment. This ethos has achieved Ananas Anam status as a Certified B Corporation® and earned an endorsement by The Vegan Society and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Our target is to reduce the environmental impact generated by the textile industry, addressing this by valorising agricultural waste from pineapple farming to offer our products as a solution to meet our clients’ sustainability goals, such as Route to Net Zero. Ananas Anam is best known for creating Piñatex®: a pioneering natural and vegan nonwoven textile.
Ananas Anam is an innovative company that specialises in processing pineapple leaf fibres (PALF) into sustainable textile solutions. In all that we do, we consider the impact of our decisions on our workers, customers, suppliers, community and on the environment. This ethos has achieved Ananas Anam status as a Certified B Corporation® and earned an endorsement by The Vegan Society and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Our target is to reduce the environmental impact generated by the textile industry, addressing this by valorising agricultural waste from pineapple farming to offer our products as a solution to meet our clients’ sustainability goals, such as Route to Net Zero. Ananas Anam is best known for creating Piñatex®: a pioneering natural and vegan nonwoven textile.
References
1. G. Schild, Environmental Responsibility of the Man-Made-Cellulosic Fiber Value Chain, Cellulose Workshop, 2020.
2. S. Opperskalski, S.J. Ridler, S. Y. Siew, E. Tan, et al., Preferred Fibre & Materials Market Report 2021, Textile Exchange, 2021.3. HKRITA, Making it happen, global collaboration for textile recycling, 2016.
4. A Patti, G. Cicala, D. Acierno, Polymers, 2020, 13(1), 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13010134.
5. O. A. El Eoud, M. Kostag, K. Jedvert, N. I. Malek, Macromolecular Materials and Engineering, 2020, 30 (4), 1900832. https://doi.org/10.1002/mame.201900832
6. Y. Ma, B. Zeng, X. Wang, N. Byrne, ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 2019, 7(4), 11937. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b06166.
7. Grand View Research, E-commerce Footwear Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Type (Leather Footwear, Athletic Footwear, Athleisure Footwear), By Region, And Segment Forecasts, 2022 – 2028, Grand View Research, 2020, Report ID: GVR-4-68039-947-0.
8. T. Pringle, M. Barwood, S. Rahimifard, Procedia CIRP, 2016, 48, 544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.112
9. A. C. Woolridge, G. D. Ward, P. S. Phillips, M. Collins, S. Gandy, Conservation and Recycling, 2016, 46(1), 94. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.06.006.
10. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Directive 2008/98/Ec Of The European Parliament And Of The Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (Text with EEA relevance), Official Journal of the European Union, 2008, pp 3-30. https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098
11. I. A. Ignatyev, W. Thielemans,B. Vander Beke, ChemSusChem, 2014, 7(6), 1579. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.201300898
12. G. Sandin, G. M. Peters, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 184, 353. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2018.02.266.
13. A. Magnin, E. Pollet, V. Phalip, L. Avérous, Biotechnology Advances, 2020, 39, 107457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2019.107457
14. K. Goldsworty, R. Earley , K. Politowicz , Circular Design Speeds: prototyping fast and slow sustainable fashion concepts through inter disciplinary design research, Mistra Future Fashion, 2019.
15. Ellen Macarthur Foundation, Vision of a Circular Economy for Fashion, Ellen Macarthur Foundation Publications, 2020. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/our-vision-of-a-circulareconomy-for-fashion
16. S. Jayasekara, R. Ratnayake, Microbial Cellulases: An Overview and Applications. In: Cellulose, IntechOpen, 2019. 10.5772/intechopen.84531
17. M. A..Bukhari, R. Carrasco-Gallego, E. Ponce-Cueto, Waste Management & Research, 2018, 36(4), 321.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X18759190.
18. D. G. K. Dissanayake, D. U. Weerasinghe, K. A.P.Wijesinghe,, K. M. D. M. P. Kalpage, Waste Management, 2018, 79, 356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.08.001.
1. G. Schild, Environmental Responsibility of the Man-Made-Cellulosic Fiber Value Chain, Cellulose Workshop, 2020.
2. S. Opperskalski, S.J. Ridler, S. Y. Siew, E. Tan, et al., Preferred Fibre & Materials Market Report 2021, Textile Exchange, 2021.3. HKRITA, Making it happen, global collaboration for textile recycling, 2016.
4. A Patti, G. Cicala, D. Acierno, Polymers, 2020, 13(1), 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13010134.
5. O. A. El Eoud, M. Kostag, K. Jedvert, N. I. Malek, Macromolecular Materials and Engineering, 2020, 30 (4), 1900832. https://doi.org/10.1002/mame.201900832
6. Y. Ma, B. Zeng, X. Wang, N. Byrne, ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 2019, 7(4), 11937. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b06166.
7. Grand View Research, E-commerce Footwear Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Type (Leather Footwear, Athletic Footwear, Athleisure Footwear), By Region, And Segment Forecasts, 2022 – 2028, Grand View Research, 2020, Report ID: GVR-4-68039-947-0.
8. T. Pringle, M. Barwood, S. Rahimifard, Procedia CIRP, 2016, 48, 544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.112
9. A. C. Woolridge, G. D. Ward, P. S. Phillips, M. Collins, S. Gandy, Conservation and Recycling, 2016, 46(1), 94. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.06.006.
10. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Directive 2008/98/Ec Of The European Parliament And Of The Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (Text with EEA relevance), Official Journal of the European Union, 2008, pp 3-30. https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098
11. I. A. Ignatyev, W. Thielemans,B. Vander Beke, ChemSusChem, 2014, 7(6), 1579. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.201300898
12. G. Sandin, G. M. Peters, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 184, 353. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2018.02.266.
13. A. Magnin, E. Pollet, V. Phalip, L. Avérous, Biotechnology Advances, 2020, 39, 107457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2019.107457
14. K. Goldsworty, R. Earley , K. Politowicz , Circular Design Speeds: prototyping fast and slow sustainable fashion concepts through inter disciplinary design research, Mistra Future Fashion, 2019.
15. Ellen Macarthur Foundation, Vision of a Circular Economy for Fashion, Ellen Macarthur Foundation Publications, 2020. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/our-vision-of-a-circulareconomy-for-fashion
16. S. Jayasekara, R. Ratnayake, Microbial Cellulases: An Overview and Applications. In: Cellulose, IntechOpen, 2019. 10.5772/intechopen.84531
17. M. A..Bukhari, R. Carrasco-Gallego, E. Ponce-Cueto, Waste Management & Research, 2018, 36(4), 321.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X18759190.
18. D. G. K. Dissanayake, D. U. Weerasinghe, K. A.P.Wijesinghe,, K. M. D. M. P. Kalpage, Waste Management, 2018, 79, 356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.08.001.
