Beyond Chemical Promises: Why Textile Recycling Needs a Technology Reality Check

The industry's growing emphasis on chemical recycling reflects legitimate technical challenges with mechanical approaches, particularly regarding fibre quality degradation and blend separation. However, presenting these technologies as competing alternatives rather than complementary solutions may impede overall progress.

Salmon Legagneur underscores the need for technological diversity: "Chemical recycling remains a promising option for managing specific material flows on a potentially large scale. Mechanical and thermomechanical recycling is also an interesting option, which is already working effectively and should not be overlooked. All of these solutions can complement each other."

This complementary approach recognises the fact that different materials and contamination levels suit different processing methods. Pure cotton garments might benefit from mechanical recycling, poly-cotton blends could require chemical separation, and heavily contaminated materials might need advanced chemical processing.

Luna Aslan talks about chemical recycling's unique advantages: "While mechanical recycling has its advantages, it remains limited by the complexity of textile materials and the quality degradation that occurs with repeated cycles. Chemical processes can break down complex blends and contaminated fibres into their foundational monomers, enabling near-infinite recycling without quality loss."

However, Salmon Legagneur has a word of caution on overestimating chemical recycling's current capabilities: "It is true that solutions are emerging and highlight their ability to separate, for example, cotton and polyester, or to chemically disassemble garments. It should always be borne in mind that this is frequently laboratory or pilot work, and that it sometimes involves limited production rates and specific preparation of the material."

The technology readiness level (TRL) gap represents a critical consideration often overlooked in investment decisions. "The TRL level of the solution should always be considered, as it can be a long way from a solution that can be deployed on a large scale and have a major impact on the industry," Salmon Legagneur warns.

Pushkarova offers another perspective: "We are not specialists in chemical recycling, but we follow the developments closely. From what we see, many current technologies are not yet capable of processing complex fibre blends—the very materials that dominate textile waste today."

This reality implies the need for parallel development paths. "We advocate for a dual approach: invest in future-ready chemical solutions, but also scale and improve mechanical recycling for the near term," Pushkarova explains.

Mechanical recycling's immediate applicability offers crucial advantages during the transition period. While chemical technologies mature, mechanical systems can process the significant volumes of suitable materials currently being laid to waste. Improving mechanical recycling efficiency and output quality could deliver substantial impact while chemical solutions develop.

The most effective approach integrates both technologies strategically. "Whatever happens, the detection/sorting and material preparation stages will remain essential to qualify and homogenise the deposits to be treated with one or other of the processes, depending on each of the specifications," Salmon Legagneur concurs.

Textile blends dominate modern fashion because they deliver performance characteristics that single-fibre materials simply cannot match. Nevertheless, these same blends create the most significant challenges for recycling systems, requiring either separation technologies or processing methods that can handle mixed compositions.

Pushkarova explains this fundamental incongruity: "This contradiction reflects how deeply design priorities remain disconnected from end-of-life realities. Blended textiles exist because they meet a range of consumer demands: stretch, softness, durability, and affordability. Unfortunately, recyclability is rarely factored in at the design stage."

Consumer preferences accentuate this apparent disconnect. Shoppers expect garments that combine cotton's comfort with polyester's durability and elastane's stretch. Pure-fibre alternatives often sacrifice performance characteristics that consumers value, creating market resistance to more recyclable designs. The scale of this legacy challenge is humongous. 

Chemical recycling companies often target these blends as their primary opportunity. However, Salmon Legagneur points out the complexity of this assertion: "In the case of yarns that can dissolve under specific conditions, this implies integrating the yarn into the design and manufacture of textiles, i.e. upstream of processes, without disrupting production lines."

This integration requirement illustrates a broader challenge with chemical solutions. Many require design modifications during production to enable effective recycling, but implementing these changes across global supply chains requires coordination and investment that may take years to achieve. Some are willing to take the plunge; others are more circumspect.

"The process could work, but to be feasible on a large scale it would mean, for example, that garments put on the market would have to incorporate this solution on a massive scale," Salmon Legagneur explains. The network effects necessary for success create chicken-and-egg problems similar to those facing other recycling infrastructure.

Alternative approaches focus on processing existing blends without requiring upstream design changes. "At Re:inventex, we're testing solutions, adapting our processes, and partnering with innovators to explore how even partially recyclable or reusable outputs from blended materials can be recovered," Pushkarova describes.

This matter-of-fact approach concedes the fact that partial solutions of today may be more valuable than the perfect solutions of tomorrow that remain unscalable. Recovering even 60–70% of value from blended materials could significantly impact overall recycling rates if implemented broadly.

And, add to this a tricky issue to handle: consumer awareness, which represents another crucial element. "Consumers themselves are not yet making choices that prioritise circularity," Pushkarova notes. However, changing consumer preferences requires both better communication about recycling challenges and improved availability of high-performance, recyclable alternatives.

Design education too—needless to say—offers a long-term pathway to addressing the exasperating blend challenge. "Designers are being trained to make them aware of the end-of-life implications of the products they bring to market, and in particular the recyclability potential of their products. This training work will also require time," Salmon Legagneur explains.

CETIA provides direct support for this transition: "CETIA also offers a support service for product designers to help them deal with the question of the recyclability of their products." Such services could accelerate the shift toward more recyclable designs while maintaining performance characteristics consumers expect.

Tailender

The textile recycling industry's success depends on abandoning false choices between competing technologies in favour of strategic integration. While chemical recycling offers long-term potential for processing complex materials, mechanical approaches provide immediate opportunities for impact with existing infrastructure. 

The sorting revolution represents the most critical near-term opportunity, enabling optimal material routing that maximises value recovery across all recycling pathways. Rather than betting everything on single solutions, the industry needs technology portfolios that address different material types and contamination levels appropriately. 

This requires honest assessment of current capabilities, realistic timelines for emerging technologies, and coordinated investment in the sorting infrastructure that enables all recycling methods to operate effectively.