Textile mills are drowning in low‑density, dusty fiber waste — but a growing mix of recycling, nonwoven uses, and stricter policy is pushing mills to capture value instead of landfilling or burning it.
Europe alone generates roughly 7–7.5 million tonnes of textile waste per year — about 15 kg per person — according to one industry analysis (fiberjournal.com). Indonesia’s planners forecast around 3.5 million tonnes per year by 2030 (gggi.org).
Policy is catching up. Indonesia is extending extended producer responsibility to textiles; Stage 2 of Ministerial Regulation 75/2019 will require all textile producers (large and SME) to file waste‑reduction roadmaps (antaranews.com). In the EU, a revised Waste Framework Directive effective 2025 mandates separate collection and recycling of used textiles (fiberjournal.com).
The gap is still wide: an often‑cited industry study puts fiber‑to‑fiber recycling of apparel at under 1%, with about 14% downcycled into other products (fiberjournal.com).
Mechanical recycling into yarn
Mechanically recycling fibers — shredding and respinning — is the first port of call for pre‑consumer spinning and weaving scrap. In a 2022 Heliyon study, mechanically recycled cotton (from pre‑ and post‑consumer scrap) replaced up to 25% of virgin cotton in a 30 Ne ring‑spun yarn (Ne is an English cotton count for yarn fineness), maintaining acceptable structure and strength for knitwear (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).
Rotor (open‑end) spinning — typically for coarser yarns such as Ne 20/1 — can tolerate even higher waste ratios. Tests report blow‑room waste or reclaimed fabric fiber up to 50% of the blend without catastrophic loss of yarn/fabric properties, though thick places and neps (small entangled fiber knots) increase (intechopen.com). By contrast, carded sliver waste (with very short fibers) caused worse yarn strength and hairiness and is generally limited to around 30% of the blend (intechopen.com).
The trade‑offs are measurable: blends above 30% waste often show higher Uster CV% (a standard unevenness metric), more thin/thick places and neps, and greater hairiness; meanwhile, neat yarn strength and moisture absorbency decline (intechopen.com) (intechopen.com). In practice, mills blend to the product: coarse or denim weaves can tolerate higher‑waste rotor yarns; fine ring‑spun apparel yarns use lower waste percentages. Cleaner waste streams (sliver or fabric trim) can be used at higher ratios, whereas “dirty” blow‑room/card waste — with high short‑fiber and neps content — must be limited (intechopen.com).
Chemical and thermal pathways
Chemical depolymerization and thermal processes open options for synthetics and mixed blends. Polyester (PET) waste can be depolymerized — for example, glycolysis to BHET monomers — and mixed cotton/polyester wastes can undergo thermal routes including pyrolysis (oxygen‑free heating) to oils and syngas (mdpi.com) (mdpi.com). Pure cotton can be dissolved similarly to viscose pulp; for example, the lyocell process can re‑dissolve 100% cotton into new fibers, though blending with virgin viscose typically improves yield (mdpi.com).
These routes are less common today for pre‑consumer weaving scrap, but they show that all‑fiber waste can, in principle, be returned to monomers or pulp for re‑spinning or other polymer manufacture (mdpi.com).
Non‑spinning uses and material savings
When fibers are too short or heterogeneous for spinning, mills divert them to nonwoven mats and insulation. Mechanical “defibering” shreds mixed textiles into loose webs, which are needled or bonded into felts, thermal insulation mats, acoustic padding, automotive headliners, or upholstery stuffing (mdpi.com). Textile waste has also been incorporated into cement mortars and fiberboards to improve thermal insulation (mdpi.com) (mdpi.com).
Other steady outlets include wiping rags and absorbents — after removing metal parts like buttons and zippers — where cotton and wool’s absorbency is valued; defibering lines often start by stripping metals to produce wiper cloths (mdpi.com). Short fibers also go into filler and flocking for furniture, car seats, filters, geotextiles, padding, mattresses, and automotive headrests (mdpi.com).
Pyrolysis of textile waste can yield carbon char used as composite filler or even electrode material. Cotton‑based char has been tested as an additive in concrete and battery electrodes, showing good strength and conductivity (mdpi.com). Diverting cotton waste into insulation panels can cut CO₂ emissions by about 50% per kilogram of fiber compared to virgin alternatives (mdpi.com) (mdpi.com).
Disposal, energy recovery, and chemical depolymerization
When recycling and reuse options run out, mills turn to incineration (waste‑to‑energy) or landfill. In the EU, about 15% of separately collected textiles are incinerated (with or without energy recovery), while roughly 12% still go to landfill — down from 21% in 2010 (eea.europa.eu).
Related thermal routes include pyrolysis under oxygen‑free conditions, where polymers decompose to syngas and oils; with catalysts, processes can regenerate up to roughly 65% of polyester by weight as BHET via glycolysis. Nylon‑6 waste can be glycolysed back to caprolactam, and PET can be depolymerized into terephthalate oligomers (mdpi.com) (mdpi.com). These chemical routes are not yet widely practiced for large‑scale weaving scrap.
Landfill is the last resort. Indonesian law classifies textile waste as relatively inert, yet blended or contaminated scrap still ends up buried. As Indonesia advances a 2030 circular‑economy roadmap, landfill disposal is being phased down, with regulatory incentives — including credit or tax breaks — under discussion to favor energy recovery and recycling instead (antaranews.com) (eea.europa.eu).
Handling, dust control, and conveyance
Weaving waste fibers are low‑density, entangled, and dusty. Bulk transport in bins or mechanical conveyors tends to jam; fugitive lint clings to equipment and escapes. Mills lean on pneumatic (vacuum) conveying to cyclones, central filters, and balers. Without adequate dust collection, one workshop “is basically in a state that can not be seen all day long,” as a vacuum supplier describes (evpvacuum.com).
Combustible dust risk is real. Safety agencies list cotton and wool dust as combustible; one industry report tallied 111 combustible‑dust incidents in textiles causing 66 deaths from 2006–2017 (sonicaire.com). Equipment therefore needs explosion‑safe design (e.g., ATEX‑rated fans and filters), proper grounding, and static control.
Sorting, contamination, and process aids
Waste variability complicates recycling. Even small amounts of spandex can clog shredders, while residual oils or sizing make fibers clump in machines (fiberjournal.com). That is why waste is often sorted and cleaned first — removing metal fasteners and large contaminants — before processing (mdpi.com). For capturing coarse debris in these lines, some plants integrate screening stages; continuous removal can be implemented using an automatic screen system where appropriate.
Downstream, magnetic traps and strainers help protect shredders and cards from remaining metal. In liquid or vacuum transfer loops that include trap points, a robust strainer assembly adds a second barrier to bolts, clips, and zipper fragments referenced in defibering lines (mdpi.com).
Lubrication aids can reduce friction and breakage during carding. Technicians have long applied low‑dose finishing lubricants; one study notes 0.1–0.5% polyethylene glycol (a water‑soluble polymer lubricant) lowered fiber friction in cohesion tests (mdpi.com) (mdpi.com). Smaller operations that hand‑sort and pre‑screen for contaminants sometimes opt for a manual screen stage before feeding cutters or openers.
What mills can bank on now
The data show that pre‑consumer fiber waste from weaving can be reincorporated by blending into yarn — roughly 25% in a 30 Ne ring‑spun knitwear yarn, and up to 50% in coarser rotor yarns, depending on the waste stream — with quality trade‑offs captured in Uster unevenness and hairiness metrics (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) (intechopen.com). Leftover fibers are steady feedstock for insulation, wipes, stuffing, and composite filler (mdpi.com).
When those routes are exhausted, disposal narrows to incineration with or without energy recovery and, increasingly discouraged, landfilling, while chemical depolymerization and pyrolysis continue to develop (eea.europa.eu) (mdpi.com). Across all options, one constant remains: dust‑prone fibers demand robust collection, conveying, and explosion‑safe controls from pickup to processing (sonicaire.com) (evpvacuum.com).
