As the textile industry confronts mounting waste and pollution challenges, recycling has emerged as a critical pathway towards circularity. Yet, despite growing interest from brands and policymakers, recycled textiles, especially polyester remain a niche solution, and concerns around chemical contamination persist. This research explores whether textile recycling, particularly open- and closed-loop polyester recycling, offers a genuine sustainability gain or whether hidden toxic risks undermine its promise.  

Key Takeaways

1. Recycling remains limited and inconsistent

• Less than 20% of global textiles are currently recycled, with closed-loop recycling rates in major markets ranging dramatically from 0.2% in the UK to 14-30% in Japan.  
• Most garments (87%) continue to be landfilled or incinerated, highlighting limited infrastructure and scalability challenges.
• Companies attempting large-scale textile recycling have struggled, with notable cases such as Re:NewCell filing for bankruptcy, reflecting wider market fragility.  

2. Chemical contamination poses significant risks

• Recycled fibres, particularly post-consumer recycled polyester, may contain chemicals from dyes, finishes, detergents, coatings, flame retardants, microplastics, and other additives.
• Initial evidence suggests post-consumer materials may contain more contaminants than those recycled from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles.
• Many chemicals used in global supply chains differ by country, creating inconsistent safety standards and potential exposure risks for consumers and the environment.  

3. Open-loop vs closed-loop recycling reveals key differences

• Open loop: Uses PET bottles to create polyester fibres; contamination levels are comparatively lower.
• Closed-loop: Uses end-of-life textiles; contamination is more complex due to dyes, finishes, and everyday residues (e.g., skin cells, food, blood).
• The study’s early thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) shows different decomposition profiles, implying varying chemical compositions between the two samples tested.  

4. Mechanical, chemical, and enzymatic recycling each have limitations

• Mechanical recycling preserves fibre structure but weakens fibres over time and cannot handle mixed or heavily processed textiles.
• Chemical recycling enables depolymerisation but may introduce or retain harmful chemicals and compromise fibre performance.
• Enzymatic recycling, while promising, is still emerging and not yet widely scalable.  

5. Lack of transparency risks greenwashing

• Prior large-scale studies (e.g., H&M & IKEA) show gaps in chemical reporting, raising concerns that mischaracterised findings could unintentionally support greenwashing.
• Without clear, standardised chemical testing protocols, brands may make sustainability claims that lack scientific backing.  

Ongoing research is urgently needed

• The pilot study tested real-life garments from a high street retailer, revealing material differences and potential chemical residues.  

This study, ‘Textile Recycling: Positive Change or Toxic Truth?’ (Brydges et al., 2025), highlights that while textile recycling, particularly polyester recycling, holds potential for circularity, it also presents significant and often overlooked chemical risks. For the textile ecosystem, understanding these risks is essential to ensure that recycling delivers real environmental and health benefits rather than creating new forms of toxicity. Continued research and innovation will be critical for scaling safe, effective recycling systems.

For further details, visit ScienceDirect.