Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40219261›Full record

ReviewPolymers2025

Environmental Impact of Textile Materials: Challenges in Fiber-Dye Chemistry and Implication of Microbial Biodegradation.

Arvind Negi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Polymers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Arvind NegiFaculty of Educational Science, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-0341-9291

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Synthetic and natural fibers are widely used in the textile industry. Natural fibers include cellulose-based materials like cotton, and regenerated fibers like viscose as well as protein-based fibers such as silk and wool. Synthetic fibers, on the other hand, include PET and polyamides (like nylon). Due to significant differences in their chemistry, distinct dyeing processes are required, each generating specific waste. For example, cellulose fibers exhibit chemical inertness toward dyes, necessitating chemical auxiliaries that contribute to wastewater contamination, whereas synthetic fibers are a major source of non-biodegradable microplastic emissions. Addressing the environmental impact of fiber processing requires a deep molecular-level understanding to enable informed decision-making. This manuscript emphasizes potential solutions, particularly through the biodegradation of textile materials and related chemical waste, aligning with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 6, which promotes clean water and sanitation. For instance, cost-effective methods using enzymes or microbes can aid in processing the fibers and their associated dyeing solutions while also addressing textile wastewater, which contains high concentrations of unreacted dyes, salts, and other highly water-soluble pollutants. This paper covers different aspects of fiber chemistry, dyeing, degradation mechanisms, and the chemical waste produced by the textile industry, while highlighting microbial-based strategies for waste mitigation. The integration of microbes not only offers a solution for managing large volumes of textile waste but also paves the way for sustainable technologies.

Indexed as

bioremediationcellulose materialscolorantsdiazo dyesfiber chemistrymicrobesreactive dyessynthetic dyessynthetic polymers

Identifiers

PMID40219261
PMCPMC11991193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.