Textiles on the Path to Sustainability and Circularity—Results of Application Tests in the Business-to-Business Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of the manuscript is not highlighted.

The scientific novelty of the manuscript is not emphasized.

An extensive literature review was conducted, but it is not clear what problems were focused on.

The test methodology is described very vaguely, for example, it is not clear what exactly was done with the tested products; according to which criteria consumers evaluated the products under study; on the basis of which exactly 100 cycles of wear was chosen, etc.

The manuscript  has two sections titled conclusions.

The conclusions presented at the end of the manuscript do not reflect the content of the manuscript .

Author Response

Aim: Done, see the updated submission (see line 72-78)

Scientific novelty: Done, see the updated submission (see line 79-86)

Literature review: Done, see the updated submission (see lines 141, 179, 204, 241-242

Test method: Done, see the updated submission (see lines 261-267, 343-366)

Twice conclusions: Done, see the updated submission, now 4.1.4 is called “Outcomes of the practical tests” (see line 515)

Conclusions: Thank you very much for the comments. We substituted the conclusions completely, see the updated submission (see lines 806-846)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting paper that addresses the environmental impact of the textile industry by promoting a shift from a linear to a circular textile economy. This work can be very useful for people that work in this field and represents an interesting contribution to this sector. The main contributions of the paper include the development and testing of three textile prototypes designed for fibre regeneration and innovative chemical recycling solutions in the B2B sector. The study demonstrates that these prototypes match conventional textiles in quality and offer significant environmental benefits.

The strengths of the paper lie in its comprehensive methodological approach, including spectroscopic, textile-technological tests, and life cycle assessments, as well as its participatory development process involving users.

It is obvious that the manuscript could have analysed (or compare to) other aspects related to water consumption or chemical pollution, but the topic it addresses is so important that these other issues will be discussed in subsequent papers, I expect.

Could the authors answer/considered the following comments?:

1) Why didn't the authors provide information about the questions asked in the surveys?

2) Why did you name the Sections as Chapters?

3) In Table S1, replace 'Combinded dry heat...' with 'Combined dry heat...'.

4) The conclusions are diffuse. I believe that the conclusions of the results are not shown in this section. Please include the conclusions of your work concisely.

 

     

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is well-written in English and only minor corrections are needed.

Author Response

Other impacts: This is true. However, we decided to avoid a too extensive description and analysis of the impact categories due to a focus on some important aspects. We will reflect these issues in subsequent papers.

Questions: Done, see the updated submission, see lines 560-562, 582 and footnote 21.

Sections/chapters: Done

Table S 1: Thank you, done

Conclusions: Thank you very much for the comments. We substituted the conclusions completely, see the updated submission (see lines 806-846)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper deals with the topic of the circular economy in the textile industry, a topical and very important concern from both a scientific and a political point of view.

The manuscript is well structured and clearly outlines the research framework and objectives. The research methodologies are well presented, and the results support the authors' conclusions. The manuscript is well written, in a clear and correct English language and style.

Given the importance of the topic addressed, how the context of the research is presented, the methods used and the results obtained based on which the conclusions were drawn, I consider the manuscript to be appropriate and recommend its publication in the  Sustainability journal. 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your review!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Accept in present form