The global apparel industry is a significant yet overlooked source of plastic leakage

The study addresses the research question: How much plastic pollution is generated by the global apparel industry across its life cycle, and where and how does this leakage occur? Plastic pollution has likely exceeded planetary boundaries for novel entities, with particular attention historically given to primary microplastics in water, including microfibers shed during laundering of synthetic textiles. However, key data gaps persist, such as unquantified microfiber emissions to air from wearing and drying clothes and macroplastic leakage from mismanaged synthetic apparel at end-of-life. Concurrently, clothing production has doubled in the last 15 years due to rising middle-income populations and fast fashion, making apparel-related macro- and microplastic leakage a growing yet overlooked pollution source. The authors present a comprehensive plastic leakage assessment for the global apparel industry, spanning production, manufacturing, use, second life, and disposal, and covering synthetic, cotton, and other fibers for global apparel consumption in 2019. They geospatially track flows of new and used apparel, including seven major primary markets (US, EU-28 high- and low-income, Japan, China, India, Brazil) plus Rest of World and account for secondary markets receiving used apparel exports.

Prior work highlights that primary microplastics to waterbodies have received extensive attention, with laundering of synthetic textiles contributing an estimated 4%–35% of primary microplastic emissions. Studies note emerging concerns over microfiber releases to air from wearing clothing and from dryers, which are not yet quantified comprehensively. Macroplastic leakage during disposal of synthetic apparel waste has been understudied. Broader literature indicates plastic pollution as a global threat potentially beyond safe planetary boundaries for novel entities, and global assessments have quantified major plastic leakage sources such as packaging and paints. Methodological frameworks for assessing plastic leakage and life cycle impacts (e.g., Plastic Leak Project guidelines, LCIA approaches for macro- and microplastics) exist but are still evolving, with ongoing development of effect factors and impact assessment methods for marine litter and micro/nanoplastics.

The study performs a plastic leakage assessment over the full apparel life cycle for 2019 global consumption, covering synthetic, cotton, and other fibers. Apparel consumption by market is estimated by combining production and trade data. For cotton, net apparent consumption is calculated from USDA mill-use data with imports minus exports across value chain stages, applying USDA conversion factors and accounting for losses. For synthetic apparel, because of diverse end uses, consumption for the US, EU-28 (high/low income), and Japan is derived from apparel import data; for China, India, and Brazil, estimates are based on cotton’s share of apparel consumption and extrapolations, with uncertainty ranges (notably for China). Other fibers include manmade cellulosics and natural fibers; manmade other fibers follow the synthetic approach, while natural fiber shares are derived from US trade data and assumed representative globally. Secondary (used apparel) trade flows are compiled using HS 6309 data from Trade Data Monitor to attribute end-of-life exports from primary to secondary markets, avoiding double counting by focusing on waste/leakage post-export sorting. Plastic flows are quantified along each value chain stage (agriculture/pellets, yarn/fabric/apparel manufacturing, use and laundering, second life, packaging, transport, and end-of-life), incorporating losses and releases: plastic pellet losses, microfiber releases to water during manufacturing and laundering, macroplastic losses during disposal, and transport-related microplastics (tire wear). Microfiber emissions to air are excluded due to insufficient data. Macroplastic leakage during waste disposal is modeled using the Mismanaged Waste Index (MWI), defined as the fraction of waste not adequately managed (not recycled, incinerated, or properly landfilled). Country-specific MWIs are used (Kaza et al.) with textile-specific refinements for key countries/regions (EU-28 high income 0%, EU-28 low income 7.8%, US 1.6%, China 43%, India 68%, Brazil 40%, Pakistan 98%, Japan 1.8%). Uncertainty analysis propagates uncertainties from consumption estimates (notably China and Rest of World) and MWI (including textile-specific MWI variability by comparing methodologies and using interquartile ranges by income group for packaging/export MWIs). Leakage and waste results are presented as midpoint values with confidence intervals. Data sources include Trade Data Monitor, USDA, and supplementary datasets, with detailed derivations in the Supplementary Information.

• Global apparel consumption in 2019: 32 [31–33] Mt, comprising synthetic 15 [14–15] Mt, cotton 15 Mt, and other fibers 2.6 Mt.
• Global apparel sector plastic waste generation (mostly macroplastic): 21 [20–22] Mt in 2019.
  • Macroplastic waste by value chain: synthetic 18 Mt (89% of apparel macroplastic waste), cotton 1.9 Mt (9.4%), other fibers 0.31 Mt (1.5%).
  • Synthetic end-of-life apparel constitutes 81% of total plastic waste from the apparel industry; packaging is a minor contributor in the synthetic chain. In cotton and other fibers, packaging dominates the plastic waste contribution (with minor cotton mulch contribution).
• Total plastic leakage from the apparel industry: 8.3 [4.8–12.3] Mt in 2019, equal to 14% [5.5%–30%] of estimated global plastic leakage of 60 [41–87] Mt/year.
  • The main source is mismanaged synthetic apparel waste in primary and secondary markets: 6.6 [4.1–10] Mt/year (88% of leakage from the synthetic apparel value chain; 79% of leakage from the whole apparel sector).
  • Microfiber releases to water (manufacturing and laundering) represent less than 1.5% of apparel plastic leakage by mass, about 0.11 Mt/year.
  • Packaging-related leakage: synthetic 0.71 Mt/year, cotton 0.71 Mt/year, other fibers 0.12 Mt/year; cotton value chain also includes small mulch-related leakage.
• Geographic patterns (synthetic apparel):
  • Plastic waste generation (2019) in primary markets: Rest of World 5.5 [5.3–5.8] Mt; China 3.2 [2.6–3.8] Mt; US 2.8 Mt; EU-28 high income 2.4 Mt; India 2.4 Mt; driven by population (China, India, RoW) and per-capita consumption (US, EU, Japan). Exports to secondary markets are less than one-third of each market’s waste.
  • Plastic leakage (synthetic apparel) is strongly influenced by MWI: India 1.5 [1.4–1.6] Mt/year (MWI 68%), China 1.3 [0.71–2.2] Mt/year (MWI 43%), Rest of World 3.5 [1.2–4.9] Mt/year (MWI 68%).
  • For apparel originally sold in EU-28 high income, Japan, US, and EU-28 low income, the share of plastic leakage from mismanaged synthetic apparel waste occurring in secondary export countries is approximately 93%, 80%, 80%, and 77%, respectively, indicating substantial offshoring of leakage to secondary markets.
• Secondary markets: Total leakage of synthetic apparel end-of-life in secondary markets is 1.4 [1.2–1.6] Mt/year, 17% of total apparel plastic leakage. Key secondary markets vary by primary market, with Pakistan consistently important (MWI 98%).

Findings demonstrate that mismanaged synthetic apparel at end-of-life, both domestically and after export to secondary markets, dominates apparel-related plastic leakage, far outweighing contributions from microfiber releases during use. Because used apparel exports shift waste flows from regions with robust waste management to countries with higher mismanagement rates, apparel consumption in high-income markets contributes disproportionately to pollution abroad. The results quantify apparel’s contribution to total plastic leakage (about 14%) and identify geographic hotspots driven by high Mismanaged Waste Index values. These insights address the research question by mapping where and how leakage occurs and emphasize the need to include secondary markets in corporate and policy interventions. The study underscores the importance of systemic changes toward circularity—design for durability and recyclability, extended lifetimes, improved textile waste management and recycling infrastructure (particularly in developing countries), and consideration of fiber choices—to meaningfully reduce apparel-related plastic leakage without burden shifting. Integrating evolving impact assessment methods will further clarify ecological and human health implications beyond mass-based leakage metrics.

The global apparel industry generated an estimated 8.3 [4.8–12.3] Mt of plastic leakage in 2019, primarily from mismanaged synthetic apparel waste at end-of-life, including in secondary markets receiving used clothing exports. Synthetic end-of-life apparel accounts for a substantial share of global plastic pollution, estimated at 14% [5.5%–30%] of all plastic leakage. Addressing this requires a fundamental transition to a circular apparel economy: reducing overconsumption, designing garments for durability, reuse, and recyclability, phasing out substances of concern and microfiber release, extending product lifetimes, and rapidly scaling waste management and recycling infrastructure, especially where MWI is high. Incorporating the apparel sector into global plastic pollution policy (e.g., UN treaty) and ensuring sustainability metrics beyond leakage mass are considered will help avoid unintended consequences. Without systemic change, projected growth in synthetic fiber production and use will exacerbate plastic pollution trends.

• Impact characterization gap: Current methods cannot fully translate masses and types of plastic leakage into ecological and human health impacts; particle counts may be as relevant as mass.
• MWI uncertainty: Country-specific Mismanaged Waste Index values have high uncertainty and limited textile-specific coverage; more comprehensive databases (e.g., PLASTEAX) are needed.
• Consumption data gaps: No peer-reviewed, region- and fiber-specific end-use apparel consumption database; some estimates rely on extrapolations and carry uncertainty (notably China).
• Trade data limitations: Used textile export data (HS 6309) capture first export destinations but not final end-use/destination markets.
• Exclusions: Microfiber emissions to air from wearing and drying are excluded due to insufficient data; for “other fibers,” only packaging-related plastic flows could be accounted.
• Temporal and regional data constraints: Some MWI refinements use different reference years across regions, and certain country datasets lack harmonization.