Circular Economy Guidelines for the Textile Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Line 97: A paragraph is missing pinpointing past research efforts pertinent to the matter. Are there any other papers focusing on guidelines for circular economy in the textile industry? If yes, what does the proposed paper add to the extant knowledge? If not, what have been the foci of research related to the circular economy in the textile industry? 

Line 109: Punctuation is missing.

Line 110: This section does not describe the materials and methods used to conduct the proposed research. On the contrary, this section presents the review results with regard to the guidelines proposed in the literature for the implementation of circular economy principles in the textile industry. Overall, the references included in the manuscript are fairly limited. More references need to be added.

Line 123: "The processes suggested by the proposed method are..."

Line 182: Punctuation is not needed.

Lines 249-250: Please rephrase.

Lines 252-253: "The principles of ecodesign need..."

Line 307: "Any action to speed up this process is..."

Line 519: After having discussed the guidelines derving from the literature, in this section the authors should elaborate on how the guidelines are implemented in the case study company. 

Lines 529-538: In the conclusion, future research implications should be mentioned as well as research limitations.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

thank you very much for providing really useful suggestions to improve our work.

We have dramatically improved the paper by adding a number of new information and insight on the topic.

Main changes are as follows:

• Main objectives of the work are better stated and in our opinion the ambition of this work is now clear
• State of the art has been improved by adding more references and discussion
• A case study has been adopted to better describe the applicability and results obtainable by applying the proposed guidelines.
• Results have been enlarged to include more results Main limitations of the work have been also added.
• The structure of the overall paper has been slightly changed.

Please find below a point-by-point response to your comments, where applicable.

REV1

Line 97: A paragraph is missing pinpointing past research efforts pertinent to the matter. Are there any other papers focusing on guidelines for circular economy in the textile industry? If yes, what does the proposed paper add to the extant knowledge? If not, what have been the foci of research related to the circular economy in the textile industry? 

We have enlarged the soa.

Line 109: Punctuation is missing.

Corrected.

Line 110: This section does not describe the materials and methods used to conduct the proposed research. On the contrary, this section presents the review results with regard to the guidelines proposed in the literature for the implementation of circular economy principles in the textile industry. Overall, the references included in the manuscript are fairly limited. More references need to be added.

We added more references

Line 123: "The processes suggested by the proposed method are..."

Corrected

Line 182: Punctuation is not needed.

OK

Lines 249-250: Please rephrase.

OK

Lines 252-253: "The principles of ecodesign need..."

Corrected

Line 307: "Any action to speed up this process is..."

Corrected

Line 519: After having discussed the guidelines derving from the literature, in this section the authors should elaborate on how the guidelines are implemented in the case study company. 

This was our major effort in revising the paper. As you will see we added a description of a case-study

Lines 529-538: In the conclusion, future research implications should be mentioned as well as research limitations.

Done

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper entitled "Circular Economy Guidelines for the Textile Industry" provides a comprehensive insight to establishing circular recycling in the textile industry. The content of the work is good, however the communication is a little confusing, and the message of the article is not coherent enough. My comments are as following.

Major comments:

1. The current article looks more like a review article than a research article. Although "section 3 results" was provided, it only contains 10 lines of words. The sectioning of parts in the manuscript should be improved, particularly for section 2 and 3. Author should only put a generic methodology framework and discuss the case study in section 2. In section 3, authors should discuss all the implementation and resulting outcomes.

2. It is not clear what is the impact of this study. Author should clearly describe the impact of applying the circular economy guideline in a table and place it in the result section. I propose author to tackle the elements within the circular economy guideline one-by-one within a table which considers the strategy, aim, implementation, and outcomes.

3. Authors should also discuss which strategy within the circular economy guideline has a (or is expected to have) larger impact on the case study.

4. The novelty of the work is not clear to the reader. Author should review many related works about circular economy in the textile industry, point out their contribution. Then, identify the research gap and explain how does this article addresses the research gap. This is also apparent in the number of references (only 21 other works were cited). Some articles are provided here, it is not mandatory to cite them:

Ribul, M., Lanot, A., Pisapia, C.T., Purnell, P., McQueen-Mason, S.J. and Baurley, S., 2021. Mechanical, chemical, biological: Moving towards closed-loop bio-based recycling in a circular economy of sustainable textiles. Journal of Cleaner Production, 326, p.129325.

Balanay, R. and Halog, A., 2019. Tools for circular economy: Review and some potential applications for the Philippine textile industry. Circular Economy in Textiles and Apparel, pp.49-75.

Jia, F., Yin, S., Chen, L. and Chen, X., 2020. The circular economy in the textile and apparel industry: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 259, p.120728.

5. In Table 2, there are many parameters for chemicals in incoming materials, however it is not clear how these parameters will be measured. Furthermore, the discussion about the linkage from the parameters from Table 2,3,4 to the ANN training in Figure 3 is not clear. How will these parameters be acquired? Also the parameter of the bulk material will not be the same as the sampled material (for testing), how will this be addressed?

 

Minor issues:

1. There are many language issues and typos in the manuscript. Please check them. For example, in Figure 3 "Image Acquisition an pre-processing" should be "and".

2. The conclusion is too brief. Authors should include more quantitative and qualitative results, outcomes and concepts from the manuscript. Also, highlight the novelty of this work, the broader impact of outcomes, and potential future works.

3. In Author Contributions, "Please turn to the CRediT taxonomy for the term explanation. 543 Authorship must be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work reported" should be deleted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

thank you very much for providing really useful suggestions to improve our work.

We have dramatically improved the paper by adding a number of new information and insight on the topic.

Main changes are as follows:

• Main objectives of the work are better stated and in our opinion the ambition of this work is now clear
• State of the art has been improved by adding more references and discussion
• A case study has been adopted to better describe the applicability and results obtainable by applying the proposed guidelines.
• Results have been enlarged to include more results Main limitations of the work have been also added.
• The structure of the overall paper has been slightly changed.

Please find below a point-by-point response to your comments, where applicable.

 

Major comments:

1. The current article looks more like a review article than a research article. Although "section 3 results" was provided, it only contains 10 lines of words. The sectioning of parts in the manuscript should be improved, particularly for section 2 and 3. Author should only put a generic methodology framework and discuss the case study in section 2. In section 3, authors should discuss all the implementation and resulting outcomes.

You are absolutely right. Our initial intent was to provide simple guidelines. However after your revie we understood that the paper was “choppy” and less consistent without a case-study description. Therefore we deeply revised Section 3 to include a case-study.

2. It is not clear what is the impact of this study. Author should clearly describe the impact of applying the circular economy guideline in a table and place it in the result section. I propose author to tackle the elements within the circular economy guideline one-by-one within a table which considers the strategy, aim, implementation, and outcomes.

We provided a better description of our work. Instead of tacke each element singularly we tried to synthetize the approach, thanks to the application of the method on the case study, in a single table.

3. 
   Authors should also discuss which strategy within the circular economy guideline has a (or is expected to have) larger impact on the case study.

Done

4. The novelty of the work is not clear to the reader. Author should review many related works about circular economy in the textile industry, point out their contribution. Then, identify the research gap and explain how does this article addresses the research gap. This is also apparent in the number of references (only 21 other works were cited). Some articles are provided here, it is not mandatory to cite them:
   
   We added a number of considerations related to the soa and we also added a few references, as you suggested.

 

Minor issues:

1. There are many language issues and typos in the manuscript. Please check them. For example, in Figure 3 "Image Acquisition an pre-processing" should be "and".
2. The conclusion is too brief. Authors should include more quantitative and qualitative results, outcomes and concepts from the manuscript. Also, highlight the novelty of this work, the broader impact of outcomes, and potential future works.
3. In Author Contributions, "Please turn to the CRediT taxonomy for the term explanation. 543 Authorship must be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work reported" should be deleted.

Thank you, corrections done

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper deals with an interesting and timely research issue. The main drawback resides in the fact that the approach does not include formal decision making optimization models to help quantification/measure of the performance of each decision made.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

thank you very much for providing really useful suggestions to improve our work.

We have dramatically improved the paper by adding a number of new information and insight on the topic.

Main changes are as follows:

• Main objectives of the work are better stated and in our opinion the ambition of this work is now clear
• State of the art has been improved by adding more references and discussion
• A case study has been adopted to better describe the applicability and results obtainable by applying the proposed guidelines.
• Results have been enlarged to include more results Main limitations of the work have been also added.
• The structure of the overall paper has been slightly changed.

Reviewer 4 Report

I have the following observations, and these may please be shared with the Authors of the article. Once the required responses are prepared and all queries are fixed, let me check the revised version of the article. 

 

1.     On Line 60, Page 2, please explain the tools and opportunities that are possessed by the textile leaders to achieve the vision of true green revolution.

2.     On Line 95, Page 2, the phrase “as a result” is frequently used, try to use diverse of terminologies.

3.     The introduction section lacks sufficient information regarding “circular economy”. The introduction is not coherent and well-focused on the main theme of circular economy”. It covers a wide range of areas; it should be limited to the main theme of the topic.

4.     The major defect of this study is that the debate or Argument is not clear stated in the introduction session. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the author to enhance your theoretical discussion and arrive your debate or argument.

5.     On Line 192 and 193, the acronyms are not defined, define the abbreviations for the stated acronyms PCP, TCP, OPP.

6.     Percentages given in Line 231 and 233 should be revisited and checked accordingly.

7.     Comparison and contrast of the cost analysis and benefits is lacking in the three types of raw material given in section 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. Also find the most beneficial raw material among the three for production of textile industry.

8.     Explain in Line 293, what does the standard illuminants such as D65 or TL84 means?

9.     In Line 331, it is better to mention the name of the author and then use citation for the considered paper.

10.  Better to name the authors of the cited paper in Line 343.

11.  The acronym “Id” should be written as “ID” in Line 375.

12.   In line number 454 the acronyms are not defined properly.

13.  In Section 2.7, reasons of less durability are lacking in the article, it should include the suggestions for increasing durability of the textile product.

14.  The results section should include the guidelines for circular economy linked with the textile sector. Moreover, the citation in the result section should be replaced with own gained information from different studies and all the studies results should be compared and contrast for better understanding.

15.  Much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the Results, which are not enough.

16.  It is better to identify the set of guidelines in a separate section for the better understanding of the readers.

17.  A table with similar features should be presented and a wide comparison including the general topology elements, costs, durability, benefits etc. should be presented, and the reason that the presented guidelines are better for the transition of traditional production processes to a systematic approach based on circular economy.

18.  The guidelines are not linked with the efficient use of natural resources and renewable energies as stated in the abstract.

19.  Please revise your conclusion part into more details. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this section.

20.  Overall, the paper lacks clarity, flow of information. Try to keep the article coherent and precise limited to the main focused idea propagation.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

thank you very much for providing really useful suggestions to improve our work.

We have dramatically improved the paper by adding a number of new information and insight on the topic.

Main changes are as follows:

• Main objectives of the work are better stated and in our opinion the ambition of this work is now clear
• State of the art has been improved by adding more references and discussion
• A case study has been adopted to better describe the applicability and results obtainable by applying the proposed guidelines.
• Results have been enlarged to include more results Main limitations of the work have been also added.
• The structure of the overall paper has been slightly changed.

Please find below a point-by-point response to your comments, where applicable.

 

1. On Line 60, Page 2, please explain the tools and opportunities that are possessed by the textile leaders to achieve the vision of true green revolution.

We explained the main tools with reference to recent literature. In particular we added a few references and discussion on current tools to be used by companies willing to implement CE.

2. On Line 95, Page 2, the phrase “as a result” is frequently used, try to use diverse of terminologies.

DONE

3. The introduction section lacks sufficient information regarding “circular economy”. The introduction is not coherent and well-focused on the main theme of circular economy”. It covers a wide range of areas; it should be limited to the main theme of the topic.

 

We revised the introduction

4. The major defect of this study is that the debate or Argument is not clear stated in the introduction session. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the author to enhance your theoretical discussion and arrive your debate or argument.

We clarified the main aim of our work in order to render more explicit the contribution to the field

5. On Line 192 and 193, the acronyms are not defined, define the abbreviations for the stated acronyms PCP, TCP, OPP.

We defined the acronyms

6. Percentages given in Line 231 and 233 should be revisited and checked accordingly.

Checked

7. Comparison and contrast of the cost analysis and benefits is lacking in the three types of raw material given in section 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. Also find the most beneficial raw material among the three for production of textile industry.

 

We added a few consideration on the costs for the raw materials

8. Explain in Line 293, what does the standard illuminants such as D65 or TL84 means?

Done

9. In Line 331, it is better to mention the name of the author and then use citation for the considered paper.

Done

10. Better to name the authors of the cited paper in Line 343.

Done

11. The acronym “Id” should be written as “ID” in Line 375.

OK

12. In line number 454 the acronyms are not defined properly.

Corrected

13. In Section 2.7, reasons of less durability are lacking in the article, it should include the suggestions for increasing durability of the textile product.

We added a few considerations regarding this aspect, especially in the case study description

14. The results section should include the guidelines for circular economy linked with the textile sector. Moreover, the citation in the result section should be replaced with own gained information from different studies and all the studies results should be compared and contrast for better understanding.

We tried to enlarge the discussion, also thanks to the use of the case study

15. Much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the Results, which are not enough.

Correct, we added more considerations.

16. It is better to identify the set of guidelines in a separate section for the better understanding of the readers.

We listed the steps to be followed in Section 2 before describing each single step

18. The guidelines are not linked with the efficient use of natural resources and renewable energies as stated in the abstract.

We changed the abstract

19. A table with similar features should be presented and a wide comparison including the general topology elements, costs, durability, benefits etc. should be presented, and the reason that the presented guidelines are better for the transition of traditional production processes to a systematic approach based on circular economy. Please revise your conclusion part into more details. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this section.

We tried to enhance our contribution and we added 3 figures and 3 tables to better explain our approach and its limitations

20. Overall, the paper lacks clarity, flow of information. Try to keep the article coherent and precise limited to the main focused idea propagation.

We hope the new version is more adherent to your suggestions

Reviewer 5 Report

See attachment for detailed comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

thank you very much for appreciating our work and for providing really useful suggestions to improve our work.

We have dramatically improved the paper by adding a number of new information and insight on the topic.

Main changes are as follows:

• Main objectives of the work are better stated and in our opinion the ambition of this work is now clear
• State of the art has been improved by adding more references and discussion
• A case study has been adopted to better describe the applicability and results obtainable by applying the proposed guidelines.
• Results have been enlarged to include more results Main limitations of the work have been also added.
• The structure of the overall paper has been slightly changed.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

A few minor errors were found in the revised manuscript: 

Line 580-581: "Distribution" is missing from the Table

Line 601: "whose products"

Line 690: "will iconically demonstrate"

Line 720: "The major limitations"

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

thank you again for your help. We revised the text according to your comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

 

·        In line 68 and line 75, better to put the citation at the end of the statement not immediately after the author’s name. Also, address the issue in line 83 and line 108.

·        In line 565 remove the webpage link and better to hyperlink the word 4sustainability® protocol as 4sustainability® protocol

·        Put comma (,) in line 634 and line 635 after quoting the table. For Example: Table 6, shows the parameters measured ...

·        In line 614, put single space between CMC and Parenthesis. Same pattern should be applied to 619.

·        In line 623, put cross reference to the section 3.3, so that by clicking the word (section 3.3) navigate to the corresponding section. Same should be applied to other quoted sections throughout the paper.

·        In line 668, revisit the word “crated”, correct if misspelled.

·        Transfer table 9 from the conclusion section to the end of the result section and better to write its overview in the conclusion section in two or three lines. Also add caption for the table 9.

·        Add few latest references.

 

 

Comments on the Revised Version

·        The article is now in improved version.

·        Majority of the issues in the article are addressed accordingly as suggested.

·        Only slight changes are required mentioned above.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your effort in helping the improvement of the paper.

We have changed the paper according to your suggestions.