End-of-Life Textiles

C H A P T E R

16 End-of-Life Textiles Andreas Bartl Institute of Chemical, Environmental & Biological Engineering, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria

O U T L I N E 1. Introduction

323

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

Overview Collection Waste Prevention Reuse Recycling Incineration and Landfill

328 329 329 329 331 333

2. Technological, Economical, and Ecological Background 324 2.1 Definitions 324 2.2 Fiber Market 324 2.3 Fiber Production 326 2.4 The Textile Processing Chain 327

4. Discussion

334

3. Textile Waste Treatment Scenarios

References

335

328

1 INTRODUCTION The basic differentiation between humans and animals is the wearing of clothing. The processing of fibers to textiles is thus one of the oldest human crafts. Since ancient times clothing has been produced as protection from cold, heat, or rain. Even today clothing represents a basic human need besides food, water, housing, sanitation, health, and public transport. At the same time, in industrialized countries the purpose of apparels has tremendously changed. Clothing as well as home textiles

Waste https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815060-3.00016-5

have become a question of style and fashion. They are hardly disposed of because they are damaged or worn but rather because they are not in vogue. As a result, in industrialized countries there is a massive overconsumption of textile products. On the one hand, there is a positive effect on the textile industry and subsequently on employment and turnaround. On the other hand, an excessive use of resources and a large generation of waste have to be accepted. Either way we have no choice but to face the large amounts of end-of-life textiles.

323

Copyright # 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

324

16. END-OF-LIFE TEXTILES

2 TECHNOLOGICAL, ECONOMICAL, AND ECOLOGICAL BACKGROUND 2.1 Definitions Textiles and fibers are closely linked together. According to the European Regulation No 1007/ 2011 [1] a textile product means any raw, semiworked, worked, semi-manufactured, manufactured, semi-made-up or made-up product which is exclusively composed of textile fibres, regardless of the mixing or assembly process employed. The same regulation defines a textile fiber as a unit of matter characterised by its flexibility, fineness and high ratio of length to maximum transverse dimension, which render it suitable for textile applications. Fibers are explicitly distinguishable from rods and wires which are either too stiff or too coarse. There are no definite threshold values for length and width of fibers. Usually fibers are categorized according to the unit length [2] as presented in Table 16.1. The cross section of fibers is not necessarily circular but frequently exhibits profiles such as angular (e.g., triangular), lobal (e.g., trilobal), serrated, oval (e.g., bean-shaped), ribbon-like, or even hollow. It is thus clear that the diameter is not a universally applicable property for defining the fineness of a fiber. In order to TABLE 16.1 Definitions of Fiber-Related Terms Ranked With Decreasing Unit Length [2] Term

Definition

Filament

A fiber of very great length; considered as continuous

Staple fiber

A textile fiber of limited but spinnable length

Flock

Very short fibers intentionally produced for other purposes than spinning

Fiber fly

Airborne fibers or parts of fibers (light enough to fly), visible as fibers to the human eye

Fibril

A subdivision of a fiber; can be attached to the fiber or loose

circumvent this problem it is well established in the textile industry to use the fiber denier (i.e., the linear density) [3]. The mass of a certain length of a fiber or a yarn is usually given in terms of a “tex” unit (1 tex ¼ 1 g per 1000 m), or a decitex (dtex ¼ 1 g per 10,000 m) or a denier (1 den ¼ 1 g per 9000 m [4]). Fibers are composed of a variety of materials but are usually categorized into natural and man-made fibers as sketched in Fig. 16.1. Natural fibers comprise crop as well as animal fibers. Within this group, cotton (a crop fiber) is the most important. Man-made fibers are classified according to their chemical composition, with the most fundamental differentiation being between organic and inorganic materials. Within organic man-made fibers there is a distinction between polymers from natural resources, mainly cellulose (i.e., cellulosics) and from synthetic polymers originating from petroleum (i.e., synthetics). Fig. 16.1 shows the major fiber categories including representative examples. The use of fibers and fiber-containing goods is widespread. The main end applications comprise apparel, home furnishing, and industrial uses. Apparel is basically subdivided into outerwear (e.g., trousers, coats, dresses) and underwear (e.g., briefs, stockings, undershirts). Home furnishing comprises carpets and other home textiles such as curtains, blankets, or table-clothes. The category of industrial uses is extremely diverse. Inter alia areas such as protective end uses; building and construction; medical, pharma, and health; and filter media and membranes have to be mentioned. Since fibers can be found in a great variety of products, it is to be expected that fibers end up in diverse waste streams.

2.2 Fiber Market Worldwide fiber production reached 90.6 million tons (90.6  106 t) in 2015 [6] as sketched in Fig. 16.2. Synthetic fibers make up 69% (i.e., 62.9  106 t) of all fiber production. Within this group polyester fiber is the most important,

2. WASTE STREAMS (AND THEIR TREATMENT)

2 TECHNOLOGICAL, ECONOMICAL, AND ECOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

FIG. 16.1

325

Categories of the most important fibers [2, 5].

Total: 90,621

Cotton; 20,638 ; 23% Wool; 1078 ; 1% Sythetics; 62,879 ; 69%

FIG. 16.2

Cellulosics; 6026 ; 7%

Production of fibers (in 103 t and mass %) in 2015 by category [6].

amounting to about 83% (52.1  106 t) of all synthetic fibers. Cellulosic fibers exhibited a distinct increase and in the time period 2005 to 2015 the production rate almost doubled from 3.2  106 t (i.e., 4.8% of total fiber production) to 6.0  106 t (i.e., 6.6% of total fiber production). Cotton represents the most important natural fiber showing a share of 23% (i.e., 20.6  106 t) compared to all types of fibers. The production rate for cotton fluctuated between 19.1 and 26.9  106 t over the past 15 years as a result of fluctuating supplies which depended in turn on the growing conditions. As synthetic fibers, mainly polyester, showed an increase over the past decade,

the share of cotton decreased from 37% in 2005 to 23% in 2015. Other natural fibers are of less commercial importance (e.g., wool: 1.2% or 1.1  106 t). Table 16.2 again shows that polyester is by far the most important fiber type. It is also evident that China holds a predominant position in fiber production as it holds 66% of the worldwide market. Europe and the USA are of minor importance. But, Europe still holds 50% of olefin fiber production, even if this category exhibits a relatively small volume. It has to be pointed out that the European Man-Made Fibres Association (CIRFS) statistics

2. WASTE STREAMS (AND THEIR TREATMENT)

326

16. END-OF-LIFE TEXTILES

TABLE 16.2 Fiber Production (World, China, Europe, USA) in 2015 by Fiber Type [6] China

Europe

USA

Fiber Type

World [1000 t]

[1000 t]

[%]

[1000 t]

[%]

[1000 t]

PAN

1804

703

39.0

515a

28.5

–

PA

4511

2369

52.5

447

9.9

557

12.3

PET

52,146

37,477

71.9

1056

2.0

1283

2.5

Olefin

3183

334

10.5

1618

50.8

311

9.8

Others

1253

693

55.3

268

21.4

120

9.6

Total

62,897

41,576

66.1

3904

6.2

2271

3.6

a

[%] 0.0

Data for 2014.

are mainly based on man-made fibers with cotton and wool as competitor. There are numerous other natural fibers in the market of which jute is the only one of relevance. In 2011/12 the worldwide production of jute was about 3.2  106 t [7]. In the same period, the total volume of natural fibers other than cotton and wool did not exceed 3.5 106 t [7]. It is expected that fiber production will increase significantly in the future. The two main reasons for that are as follows: on the one hand, world population is steadily growing creating an increase in fiber demand; and on the other hand, overall worldwide prosperity is predicted to increase, especially in many emerging marks, and this is closely linked to fiber consumption (i.e., increasing consumption per capita). It can further be assumed that, with a certain time delay, a comparable amount of fibers will end up as waste. Thus we can expect the fiber portion in waste to increase over the next few years.

2.3 Fiber Production Natural fibers, among which cotton is of major importance, are renewable products. During their growing stage, cotton plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But, cotton cannot be seen as a sustainable product as a significant quantity of energy, vast amounts of agricultural chemicals, and enormous amounts of

water for irrigation are required to grow the cotton [8, 9]. Furthermore, crop land for cotton production is in competition with food production. Cotton production seems to have reached a platform and a further increase is not expected to take place. Cellulosic fibers are man-made fibers but use natural polymer cellulose as a raw material. Thus to a certain extent, cellulosic fibers are renewable. The production process, however, requires a significant amount of energy and resources. Synthetic fibers are based on petroleum and are a priori not sustainable. Petroleum is not only used as feedstock but also as source for energy in polymer production and fiber manufacture. The overall energy consumption is, thus, higher than that compared to cotton or cellulosic fiber production. Figs. 16.3 and 16.4 compare the energy and water consumption for the production of relevant fibers [10]. The energy involved ranges from 60 GJ t1 (cotton) to 175 GJ t1 (acrylic fiber). In terms of water consumption used in the production of different fibers, values of between 32 m3 t1 (high density polyethylene fibers) and 663 m3 t1 (polyamide 66 fiber) are reported. Cotton falls totally out of the series as it consumes about 66,000 m3 t1. It has to be pointed out that the actual energy and water consumption and the ratio between renewable and nonrenewable energy are strongly dependent on the particular situation of the production site [8].

2. WASTE STREAMS (AND THEIR TREATMENT)

327

Fiber material

2 TECHNOLOGICAL, ECONOMICAL, AND ECOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

PAN PA 6.6 PET PA 6 PP CV LDPE HDPE WO CO

175 139 125 120 115 100 78 77 63 60 0

CO PA 6.6 CV PAN PA 6 WO PET LDPE PP HDPE

FIG. 16.3 Energy requirement for fiber production [10]. Abbreviations of fiber materials according to Refs. [2, 11].

50

100 150 Energy use [GJ/t]

22,000

200

FIG. 16.4

Water consumption for fiber production [10]. Abbreviations of fiber materials according to Refs. [2, 11].

22,000 663 640

210 185 125 62 47 43 32

0

200

400

600

800

21,000 22,000 23,000

3

Water use [m /t]

2.4 The Textile Processing Chain Fibers represent an intermediate or semifinished product. Depending on the final end use, fiber processing can take many forms. Basically, one can distinguish between conventional textiles manufactured from yarns and nonwovens. The classical route comprises spinning (yarn making) and weaving or knitting resulting in woven or knitted fabrics. Alternatively, nonwovens are formed directly from individual fibers. Certain applications do not require fabrics but yarns, rovings, or fibers. Table 16.3 presents typical energy consumption for different types of garment [12, 13].

TABLE 16.3 Consumption of Energy for Garment Production [12, 13] Cotton

Polyester

Viscose

21

Production Step

Energy/GJ t

Fiber production

55

Preparation/blending

29

29

Spinning

89

90

Knitting

32

Dying/finishing

27

27

Making up

9

9

Total/GJ t

1

2. WASTE STREAMS (AND THEIR TREATMENT)

241

64

96

160

126

49

330

173

68

241

328

16. END-OF-LIFE TEXTILES

Dyeing and finishing are usually carried out in the wet state. Thus not only the energy consumption is relevant but additional water is required (144 and 380 m3 t1; [14]) and furthermore, large amounts of waste water arise.

3 TEXTILE WASTE TREATMENT SCENARIOS 3.1 Overview As outlined in Section 2.4 fiber processing from the start to the final product takes a long time and consumes large amounts of energy. Fig. 16.5 sketches roughly the textile processing chain and also includes the energy

consumption. The arrow on the left side outlines the energy involved along the processing path. As indicated by the arrow on the right side, it is thus preferable to find routes for reuse or recycling which take place at a stage in the process after the most energetic steps have been taken (maximum depth of processing) or which are located on the bottom of the diagram. End-of-life textiles account for waste and usually are covered by a more or less developed waste management system. In the EU waste management is largely based on the waste framework directive (WFD) which has introduced a priority order for waste, the so-called waste hierarchy as sketched in Fig. 16.6 [16].

FIG. 16.5

Scheme of textile processing chain including possible reuse, recycling and recovery routes for cotton and polyethylene terephthalate (PET); References for energy consumption: [13]; *[15].

2. WASTE STREAMS (AND THEIR TREATMENT)

3 TEXTILE WASTE TREATMENT SCENARIOS

FIG. 16.6

329

Waste hierarchy according to the EU waste framework directive [16, 17].

3.2 Collection For any reuse and recycling of textile waste, a waste collection separate from other types of waste is essential. Otherwise textiles could pick up moisture or dirt which would hinder further reuse and recycling processes. Secondhand clothes must be dry, clean, and not worn. Energy consumption of waste collection is mainly dependent on the population density. For household waste, a consumption of diesel of up to 10 L t1 [18] is reported which corresponds to about 0.35 GJ t1. The total energy demand for end-of-life textiles (including transport, sorting, packing, etc.) is of the order of 6 GJ t1 [13]. The energy requirement for secondhand clothes is, thus, negligible compared to the effort in its production (up to 330 GJ t1). Separate collection of packaging waste is usually funded by the so-called Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). It means that the producers must also include the management of their packaging after the product has been used by consumers. It is reported that producers pay €3.1  109 (3.1 billion Euros) in annual fees for packaging EPR schemes [19]. Textiles are usually not covered by EPR schemes and are funded by the revenues from

secondhand clothes. As a matter of fact, collection rates are not as high as for packaging waste. As outlined in Table 16.4, Germany exhibits the highest collection rate (74%) of all countries.

3.3 Waste Prevention Waste prevention is the highest ranked option in the European waste hierarchy. According to the WFD the extension of the life span of products is defined as waste prevention. Table 16.5 presents the useful life for categories of textiles in 1998 and in 2005. It is evident that all types of textiles showed a more or less distinct decrease in the useful life between 1998 and 2005. Even if legislation aims to reduce the amount of waste by the extension of the life span of products, in reality, for textiles, the trend is in the opposite direction.

3.4 Reuse According to the EU waste hierarchy [16] reuse is a more favorable option than recovery or recycling. Multiple utilization of apparel and textiles is quite common with a washing or

2. WASTE STREAMS (AND THEIR TREATMENT)

330

16. END-OF-LIFE TEXTILES

TABLE 16.4 Amount of Collected Postconsumer Clothing and the Collection Rate (Collected Amount in Relation to Amount Put on Market) for Selected Countries Collected Amount of End-of-Life Clothing/ Country

Year

(1000 t)

(mass %)

Reference

Germany

2013

1011

74

[20]

Denmark

2010

35

48

[21]

Finland

2010

25

39

[21]

UK

2008

523

24

[22]

Sweden

2010

26

22

[21]

USA

2013

15,130

15

[23]

TABLE 16.5 Useful Life of Different Categories of Textiles in 1998 and 2005 in Years

Category

1998 Useful Life Time

2005 Useful Life Time

Decrease of Useful Life/%

Stockings/tights

1.4

1.0

28.6

Briefs/underpants

2.1

2.0

4.8

T-shirts/polos

2.6

2.0

23.1

Jeans

3.0

2.0

33.3

Blouses/shirts

3.4

2.5

26.5

Trousers other than jeans

3.7

2.0

45.9

Tracksuits

3.8

2.0

47.4

Pullovers/cardigans

4.0

2.5

37.5

Towels/bath towels

5.4

4.0

25.9

Dresses/suits

5.6

3.8

32.1

Coats

6.5

4.2

35.4

Bed linen

7.4

6.0

18.9

Table linen

9.3

6.0

35.5

Blankets

10.0

8.0

20.0

Curtains

10.8

6.5

39.8

Carpets

11.5

7.3

36.5

The percentages show the values of 2005 in relation to 1998 [20].

2. WASTE STREAMS (AND THEIR TREATMENT)

331

3 TEXTILE WASTE TREATMENT SCENARIOS Recycling; 17% Cleaning and wiping rags; 21%

Thermal recovery; 6% Disposal; 2%

Re-use (second hand clothes); 54%

0%

FIG. 16.7

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Main uses of fractions obtained by sorting of end-of-life textiles in Germany [20].

cleaning step after each cycle. In these cases reuse means a further utilization after the primary customers have sold or given away the product. It has been outlined before that a separate collection of end-of-life textiles is a prerequisite for any reuse. As a first step after collection a sorting of the textiles is required. The collected items are sorted into different fractions according to products group, material, or color. In Germany on average 154 fractions are obtained [20]. As demonstrated in Fig. 16.7 only about half of the collected items are feasible for reuse. Some items are dirty, worn or damaged, and are only feasible for other less economic uses. Among the fraction suitable for reuse, typically 1% to 3% of the items are fully functional and correspond to current fashion trends. These textiles can be sold in secondhand shops in industrialized countries for about €10,000 t1 [12]. The major fraction of rewearable textiles is sold for prices between €900 and €1400 t1 [24]. Frequently, secondhand clothes are exported to African countries and there is an ongoing discussion about the effects on the textile industry in developing and emerging countries. On the one hand, it is reported that secondhand clothes have caused an enormous decrease in the activities within the local textile industry [25]. On the other hand, in many sub-Saharan countries people cannot afford new clothing and secondhand clothes can generate jobs for trade, distribution, repair, restyle, and washing [26]. It is evident that secondhand clothes show the highest saving potential (up to 330 GJ t1; see Table 16.3). Nevertheless, it has to be considered that all

textiles will sooner or later reach the end-of-life state and that African countries have no proper waste management.

3.5 Recycling 3.5.1 Cleaning & Wiping Rags In a broader sense the reuse of fabric can be seen as component reuse. In contrast to secondhand clothes it is also convenient for worn and damaged apparel as well as for production rejects, which arise in the course of garment making, to be used for cleaning and wiping rags. The saving potential is relatively high as the production of the fabric would have required a considerable input of energy of up to 294 GJ t1. In practice, when fabric or nonwoven textiles are reused, they are used as cleaning rags. The requirements for cleaning rags are reasonably high. Ideally they should consist of cotton, linen, or viscose with minor portions of synthetic material and should be either white or colored [27]. However, textiles with a high fraction of synthetic material can be used as oil absorbent rags [28]. Heavy and hard constituents such as carpet residues, fastenings, eyelets, or zippers must not be present. In practice, a minimum size of 20  30 cm is required [27]. The market price of cleaning rags is relatively high and ranges between €1200 and €1600 t1 [24]. However, the manufacture of cleaning rags demands a high input of man power and due to the high personnel cost in developed countries such as in Europe, the overall economic situation for cleaning rags is rather poor.

2. WASTE STREAMS (AND THEIR TREATMENT)

332

16. END-OF-LIFE TEXTILES

3.5.2 Fiber Recovery Fiber recovery refers to fibers that are derived from end-of-life apparel, fabrics, or rejects arising in the course of the textile processing chain. Fiber recovery is a rather complicated process and product quality is significantly reduced. Since the fibrous structure is maintained and reused the saving potential is higher than for respun fibers and ranges between 55 (cotton) and 126 GJ t1 (polyester). The conventional process, to disintegrate textile structures and yarns, uses equipment such as cylinder raising or “fearnought” opener machines. In the process, unwanted and damaged fibers are separated and finally the recovered fibers are obtained. The process is, however, damaging to fibers. In particular, fiber length is drastically reduced, and only 25% to 55% of the fibers are longer than 10 mm [29]. Furthermore, the material contains a considerable portion of dust as well as residual yarns. Fiber length distribution is wide and commonly recovered fibers are a blend of various fiber types. As a result the recovered fibers exhibit a significantly lower level of quality than do the virgin products. To a certain extent the recovered fibers can be used for technical textiles as well as for nonwoven materials [29, 30]. Generally, fiber recovery in industrial countries, such as the EU, is in competition with low cost imported textiles from Asia, and as a result textiles from recycled fibers are becoming increasingly less competitive and less important. Apart from the classical textile disintegration process discussed above, it is reported that an alternative method can result in fibers showing properties similar to new fibers [31, 32]. In particular fibers up to 30–40 mm length can be obtained. However, the processing costs are high and the process is only convenient for high value fibers such as Aramid polymers. 3.5.3 Respinning The respinning of fibers refers to the process involved when a polymer, for example, polyester, is melted (or dissolved) and new fibers or

filaments are produced. Even if the fiber quality is similar to the quality of fibers from the original material, this procedure shows two main disadvantages. On the one hand, the fibrous structure is destroyed and as a result this recycling route corresponds to material recycling (see Section 1) and the amount of energy saved is low since the energy required for fiber formation has to be repeated. For polyester, only 81 GJ t1 instead of 126 GJ t1 can be saved. On the other hand, very often the secondary polymer, such as polyester, does not originate from fibers but from other products. In practice a so-called plastic “bottle to fiber” principle is realized. It means that secondary polyester from bottles is used to produce filaments or staple fibers [33, 34]. Although recycled polyester shows reduced material properties such as molecular weight, it can be blended with virgin material resulting in comparable fiber qualities [35]. In practice however, a “fiber to fiber” recycling procedure is not usually viable because the recycled fiber material commonly consists of a blend. A selective dissolution of certain polymers out of a mixture is possible but at present the procedure is only used for laboratory and analytical purposes [36]. In conclusion, the production of respun fibers is uneconomical. 3.5.4 Fiber Grinding The potential sources for ground fibers are widespread. Feedstock for ground fibers includes apparel which are torn or damaged, rejects from the textile processing chain, or even alternative fiber containing waste such as fluff from end-of-life tires. In regard to material originating from apparel sorting, fiber grinding results in an almost complete spectrum of fractions and thus the portion of waste is significantly minimized. Ground fibers are similar to ground flock and thus not convenient for spinning (Table 16.1). One can distinguish between cut and ground flock. On the one hand, cut flock requires a guillotine cutter, exhibits a uniform fiber length, and

2. WASTE STREAMS (AND THEIR TREATMENT)

333

3 TEXTILE WASTE TREATMENT SCENARIOS

is exclusively manufactured from filaments. On the other hand, ground flock shows a rather broad distribution of fiber length and can be produced from any staple fiber by a grinding process. It is well established that ground flock can be used as a reinforcement or viscosity modifiers. For instance, ground cellulose is frequently applied as additive to bitumen in order to increase the load capacity and temperature resistance of asphalt pavement material [37]. Since ground flock allows a rather broad fiber length distribution, it is usually made from endof-life fiber products. Since the grinding machinery is very sensitive toward metallic and hard components it has to be ensured that all unwanted and potentially damaging bits and pieces are separated and removed. The feasibility of the process has already been shown for fibers derived from end-of-life tires. And such fibers have been successfully used as an additive in bitumen instead of the well-established ground cellulose [38]. Apart from tire-derived fibers it is also reported that the nonrecoverable fraction from apparel collection (see Table 16.6) can be processed to a short fiber product to be used in bituminous and cementitious construction materials [39, 40]. Ground fibers derived from textiles and other fiber containing waste seem an interesting recycling option, not only from an ecological but also from an economical point of view. Ground fibers and recycled fibers have been successfully introduced into many markets.

3.5.5 Feedstock Recycling As sketched in Fig. 16.5 polymer waste such as polyester [41] can be used as chemical feed stock. It is reported that polyester fibers can be converted to bis(2-hydroxyethylene terephthalate) monomer by glycolysis [42] to be used for fiber production or, alternatively, for the manufacture of textile dyestuffs [43]. Even if procedures are technically viable it has to be questioned whether it is ecologically and economically worthwhile. On the one hand, the waste polymer competes with intermediates from petroleum and, thus, the saving potential is fairly low. On the other hand, waste, in particular fibrous waste, is commonly contaminated with a variety of extraneous materials (e.g., other polymers, textile auxiliaries) which complicates the processing scheme. Fiber recovery and not polymer recycling seems to be the more favorable option from both an ecological as well as from an economical point of view.

3.6 Incineration and Landfill Incineration of textile waste materials can at least recover a certain fraction of the caloric value consumed for its production. In comparison to the energy used for fiber production, the reclaimable energy is quite low as presented in Table 16.6. The balance is even worse when considering the energy consumed for garment production. The fraction of reclaimable energy is

TABLE 16.6 Energy Required for Fiber and Garment Production and Energy Reclaimable by Incineration Assuming an Energy Efficiency of 60% [8, 12] Production Energy/GJ t21

Reclaimable energy/%

Fiber

Garment

Caloric Value

Fiber

Garment

Cotton

36

241

17

28

4.2

Polyester

93

330

23

15

4.2

Viscose

19

285

17

54

3.6

2. WASTE STREAMS (AND THEIR TREATMENT)

334

16. END-OF-LIFE TEXTILES

around 4% only. It is clear that incineration exhibits advantages over landfill, but any other reuse or recycling option is favorable from an ecological as well as from an economical point of view. Landfill represents the least favorable option of waste treatment. In spite of this, a large portion of waste and also end-of-life fibers are presently disposed of in this way. Because most fibers are not biodegradable (synthetics) and also because of the high energy that has gone into production, landfilling of textiles and fibers should be avoided whenever a viable alternative exists.

4 DISCUSSION As shown before, a variety of methods does exist for treating waste and end-of-life textiles. It is of interest to investigate the driving forces to avoid landfilling or incineration in favor of recycling and reusing textile and fiber waste. Legislation plays an important role in the treatment of waste. For instance, the minimum recycling quotas as required by the EU directive on end-of-life vehicles [44] have initialized a great push to develop new methods and procedures. Of course, the treatment of textile waste is also significantly influenced by regulations such as the deposition ban for untreated waste in Germany and Austria. Economy is also an important driving force in determining the direction followed by waste streams. If the economy of the recovery process is advantageous the processes will run without intervention such is the case with the recovery of noble metals. On the other hand, even if legislation dictates recycling quotas, waste can be directed to illegal routes if no economically viable procedures for recycling and recovery are available. For instance, it has been reported that up to 75% of end-of-life vehicles are illegally exported from the EU countries [45] and, thus,

circumventing the stringent European waste legislations. From an economical point of view, textile waste exhibits an exceptional position. As outlined in Section 3.2 textiles are commonly not subject of EPR schemes but are funded by the profit obtained by the sale of secondhand textiles. It is thus the scope of textile collectors to focus on clean and fully functional items as other options than secondhand clothes are not economically attractive. A compulsory EPR scheme for textiles and clothing could force collectors to go for all categories of textile waste, even worn and dirty items. Finally, environmental and ethic attitudes can significantly influence waste treatment. Textiles represent a basic need for all human beings either as simple covering or as protection against cold. However, in industrialized countries textiles are frequently discarded and changed due to fashion reasons even if the products are almost new and fully functional. For ethical reasons many people in the industrialized countries do support the idea of secondhand textiles and thus, in the field of apparel collection, charity organizations as well as public and commercial organizations are well established to deal with the reuse of textiles and secondhand clothing. This is unique in the area of waste disposal and waste management. Today regional markets are steadily losing their importance and global markets are influencing world economy. This development is particularly true for textiles. Asia plays a predominant position in the textile industry and industrialized countries such as the EU can only keep up with speciality products. The EU stringent regulations for waste, also valid for textile waste, only affect a small share of the total textile volume. Production residues or rejects primarily arise in Asia and are thus not affected by EU legislation. A high degree of reuse and recycling will only affect end-consumer products imported to the EU but not the majority of the textile industry. This is not only valid for textile

2. WASTE STREAMS (AND THEIR TREATMENT)

REFERENCES

waste but also for the by-products of the textile processing industry such as waste water [46] and textile chemicals [47]. In the European Union waste management is currently undergoing significant changes. In December 2015 the EU Commission has launched the so-called Circular Economy Package [48]. Several documents suggest amendments of waste-related directives in the near future. Textile waste is not directly addressed but the landfill directive should be amended in a way that the fraction of municipal solid waste to be landfilled is restricted to 10% [49]. This will boost activities to divert waste, including textile waste, from landfill to incineration or recycling. The circular economy package goes beyond recycling. Member states should promote reuse activities or give support for reuse and repair networks [50]. The Commission will also prepare an independent testing program on issues related to possible planned obsolescence practices [51]. In view of the fact that textile items are frequently of poor quality and used textiles are hardly suitable for repair, these initiatives by the Commission might exert a strong pressure on textile producers, importers, and retailers.

References [1] Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 on Textile Fibre Names and Related Labelling and Marking of the Fibre Composition of Textile Products and Repealing Council Directive 73/44/EEC and Directives 96/73/ EC and 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. [2] The International Bureau for the Standardization of Man-Made Fibres, Terminology of Man-Made Fibers, The International Bureau for The Standardization of Man-Made Fibres, Brussels, 2009. [3] German Standard DIN 60905-1, 1985. [4] German Standard DIN 60910, 1985. [5] German Standard DIN 60001-1, 2001. [6] The International Rayon and Synthetic Fibres Committee, Information on Man-Made Fibres, vol. 52, The International Rayon and Synthetic Fibres Committee, Brussels, Belgium, 2016.

335

[7] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Jute, Kenaf, Sisal, Abaca, Coir and Allied Fibres, Statistics, 2012. [8] L. Shen, M.K. Patel, Life Cycle Assessment of ManMade Cellulose Fibres, Commissioned by the European Polysaccharide Network of Excellence (EPNOE) and Lenzing AG, Austria, 2008. [9] K. Paulitsch, Am Beispiel Baumwolle: Flaechennutzungskonkurrenz durch exportorientierte Landwirtschaft, Wuppertal Institut f€ ur Klima, Umwelt, Energie GmbH, Wuppertal, Germany, 2004 Paper 148. [10] S. Muthu, Y. Li, J. Hu, P. Mo, Recyclability Potential Index (RPI): the concept and quantification of RPI for textile fibres, Ecol. Indic. 18 (2012) 58–62. [11] EN ISO 1043-1, Plastics—Symbols and Abbreviated Terms—Part 1: Basic Polymers and Their Special Characteristics, CEN European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2011. [12] J.M. Allwood, S.E. Laursen, C.M. Rodriguez, N.M.P. Bocken, Well Dressed? University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 2007. [13] A.C. Woolridge, G.D. Ward, P.S. Phillips, M. Collins, S. Gandy, Life cycle assessment for reuse/recycling of donated waste textiles compared to use of virgin material: an UK energy saving perspective, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 46 (2006) 94–103. [14] E. Kalliala, P. Talvenma, Environmental profile of textile wet processing in Finland, J. Clean. Prod. 8 (2) (2000) 143–154. [15] J. Giegrich, Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry—Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) (Bottle Grade), PlasticsEurope, Brussels, 2011. [16] Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives, Strasbourg. [17] European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/waste/framework/images/prevention. jpg, 2016. [18] A.W. Larsen, M. Vrgoc, T.H. Christensen, P. Lieberknecht, Diesel consumption in waste collection and transport and its environmental significance, Waste Manag. Res. 27 (2009) 652–659. [19] The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment, Factsheet Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for Used Packaging, 2015. [20] J. Korolkow, Konsum, Bedarf und Wiederverwendung von Bekleidung und Textilien in Deutschland, Studie, im Auftrag des bvse-Bundesverband Sekund€arrohstoffe und Entsorgung e. V. RWTH-Aachen, Institut f€ ur Aufbereitung und Recycling, Aachen, 2016 21. [21] N. Tojo, B. Kogg, N. Kiørbo, B. Kjær, K. Aalto, Prevention of Textile Waste. Material Flows of Textiles in Three Nordic Countries and Suggestions on

2. WASTE STREAMS (AND THEIR TREATMENT)

336

[22]

[23]

[24] [25]

[26]

[27] [28]

[29] [30] [31]

[32] [33]

[34] [35]

[36]

[37] [38]

16. END-OF-LIFE TEXTILES

Policy Instruments, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 2012. N. Morley, C. Bartlett, I. McGill, Maximising Reuse and Recycling of UK Clothing and Textiles: A Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Oakdene Hollins Ltd., 2009. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013, 2015. J. Hawley, Y. Wang (Ed.), Recycling in Textiles, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 7–24. G. Mutume, Loss of textile market costs African jobs, African Renewal 20 (2006) 18–28 United Nations Africa Renewal, Department of Public Information, United Nations, New York. S. Baden, C. Barber, The Impact of the Second-Hand Clothing Trade on Developing Countries, Oxfam International, Oxford, 2005. German Standard DIN 61650, 2005. K. Langley, Y. Kim, Y. Wang (Ed.), Recycling in Textiles, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 137–164. B. Gulich, Y. Wang (Ed.), Recycling in Textiles, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 117–136. P. Boettchber, W. Schilde, ITB Vliesstoffe Technische Textilien, (1994) pp. 26–27. G. Ortlepp, R. Luetzkendorf, R. Bauer, Recycling fibers of waste textiles without tearer, Melliand Textilber 86 (2005) 704–707. G. Ortlepp, R. Luetzkendorf, Long carbon fibers from textile wastes, Chem. Fibers Int. 56 (2006) 363–365. K. Gurudatt, P. De, A. Rakshit, M. Bardhan, Spinning fibers from poly(ethylene terephthalate) bottle-grade waste, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 90 (2003) 3536–3545. G.M. Bhatt, Adding value to recycled PET flakes, Chem. Fibers Int. 58 (2008) 223–226. A. Elamri, A. Lallam, O. Harzallah, L. Bencheikh, Mechanical characterization of melt spun fibers from recycled and virgin PET blends, J. Mater. Sci. 42 (2007) 8271–8278. Y. Shao, M. Filteau, A systematic analysis of fiber contents in textiles, Textile Technology Center, Canada, 2004. S. Rettenmaier, European Patent EP288863, 1988. A. Bartl, A. Hackl, B. Mihalyi, M. Wistuba, I. Marini, Recycling of fibre materials, Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 83 (2005) 351–358.

[39] A. Bartl, I. Marini, K.E. Lorber (Ed.), Abfallwirtschaft, Abfalltechnik, Deponietechnik und Altlasten— DepoTech 2008, VGE-Verlag, Essen, Germany, 2008, pp. 195–200. [40] A. Bartl, I. Marini, Recycling of apparel, Chem. Eng. Trans. 13 (2008) 327–333. [41] S.R. Shukla, K.S. Kulkarni, Depolymerization of poly(ethylene terephthalate) waste, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 85 (2002) 1765–1770. [42] S.R. Shukla, A.M. Harad, Glycolysis of polyethylene terephthalate waste fibers, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 97 (2005) 513–517. [43] S. Shukla, A.M. Harad, L.S. Jawale, Chemical recycling of PET waste into hydrophobic textile dyestuffs, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 94 (2009) 604–609. [44] Commission Decision of 3 May 2000 Replacing Decision 94/3/EC Establishing a List of Wastes Pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on Waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC Establishing a List of Hazardous Waste Pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on Hazardous Waste. [45] S. Scherhaufer, P. Beigl, K.E. Lorber (Ed.), Abfallwirtschaft, Abfalltechnik, Deponietechnik und Altlasten—DepoTech 2008, VGE-Verlag, Essen, Germany, 2008, pp. 201–206. [46] R. Schneider, Y. Wang (Ed.), Recycling in Textiles, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 73–94. [47] G. Buschle-Diller, Y. Wang (Ed.), Recycling in Textiles, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 95–113. [48] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Closing the Loop—An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy, COM(2015) 614 final, Brussels/BE, 2 December 2015. [49] Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Directive 1999/31/EC on the Landfill of Waste, COM(2015) 594 final, Brussels/BE. [50] Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste, COM (2015)595 final, Brussels/BE. [51] Europa EU. Circular Economy Package: Questions & Answers, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressrelease_MEMO-15-6204_en.htm, 2015.

2. WASTE STREAMS (AND THEIR TREATMENT)