Assessing Efficiency in the Circular Economy Using the Levelized Cost of Waste: A Case Study of Textile Waste Pyrolysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors proposed a new formula for calculating the levelised cost of waste treatment and applied it to textile waste treatment through pyrolysis. The idea of introducing this indicator is new, but its definition and purpose need to be explained more clearly. The following comments should also be addressed:

• Ln 67 should be started on a new paragraph as it introduces new idea.
• It is important to review the raw materials or kind of waste that has been previously studied using pyrolysis, in addition to textile wastes.
• The manuscript contains an excessive number of headings, which affects readability. The headings and titles should be refined. The overall structure would also benefit from including methodology and results/discussion sections.
• An elaborate discussion of pyrolysis in section 3 is not necessary as it is not intended as a review paper. It would be more appropriate to provide references to relevant literature.
• Presenting the information on Ln 236 in a table would improve readability.
• O in LCOW is omitted in Ln 295
• In Ln 374, the reference cited adopted co-pyrolysis using tires. Authors should consider finding a suitable reference for their analysis.
• There is an unnecessary heading at Ln 486. Also. the description of the figure should be placed before the figure, not below it.
• In Ln 528, the authors' use of LCOW differs from standard LCOE definition because it includes revenue/benefits, which defeats its purpose as a pure cost metric. Otherwise, authors should provide a basis for this analogy.
• I expected the conclusion to compare your LCOW results to existing benchmarks, discuss implications for your case study of Polish waste policies, assess whether pyrolysis economics match current incentives, acknowledge the limitations of your LCOW method, and provide recommendations based on your findings.
• Given that LCOE and existing definition of LCOW is a cost-only metric, how does this alternative approach, which includes revenue and other benefits, provide a more realistic final cost as claimed in Ln 611?
• The LCOE analogy used throughout the work is problematic because LCOE and standard LCOW definitions are designed as pure cost metrics. Traditional LCOE and LCOW isolate costs usually to enable fair technology comparisons, while your revenue-inclusive LCOW becomes a profitability measure that cannot serve this analogous function. Authors should consider realigning the discussions in this work accordingly.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank Reviewer for the thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. We very much appreciate the time and effort devoted to reviewing our work. The feedback has been particularly valuable in helping us clarify the purpose and definition of LCOW, refine the structure of the paper, and strengthen the contextualisation of our case study. 

In the revised version, we carefully addressed each of the reviewer’s points. In some cases, we implemented the suggested changes directly (e.g., formatting corrections, restructuring section titles, presenting gas composition in a table). In other cases, we retained the original content but explained our reasoning in detail (e.g., regarding the broader discussion of pyrolysis or the use of specific references). We also expanded the Discussion and Conclusions to provide deeper comparative analysis, highlight policy implications, acknowledge methodological limitations, and propose recommendations for future research. 

Below we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to all comments, with references to the corresponding line numbers in the revised manuscript. 

1. Ln 67 should be started on a new paragraph as it introduces new idea. 

Response: Corrections were made as suggested, thank you. 

1. It is important to review the raw materials or kind of waste that has been previously studied using pyrolysis, in addition to textile wastes. 

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In response, we have expanded the introduction to provide a broader context for pyrolysis studies. We now include a brief review of other waste streams that have been investigated, such as plastics [9,9], paper [10,11], RDF [12], and biomass wastes [13]. This addition highlights the flexibility of pyrolysis in treating heterogeneous materials and producing valuable products, such as oils, gases, and chars. Including textile waste in this context emphasizes that the technology is part of a broader research field and allows for meaningful comparisons of yields, product quality, and economic feasibility across different feedstocks. We believe this revision addresses the reviewer’s comment and improves the overall contextualization of our study. 

 

Źródło 8: Maqsood T, Dai J, Zhang Y, Guang M, Li B, Pyrolysis of plastic species: A review of resources and products, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 2021, 159, 105295, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2021.105295 

Źródło 9:Sharuddin S.D.A, Abnisa F.,Wan, Daud W.M.A.W., Aroua M.K., A review on pyrolysis of plastic wastes, Energy Conversion and Management, 2016, 115, 308-326, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.02.037 

Źródło 10: Wu Ch.H, Chang Ch.Y., Tseng Ch.H., Pyrolysis products of uncoated printing and writing paper of MSW, Fuel, 2002, 81(6), 719-722, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-2361(01)00180-6,  

Źródło 11: Charusiri W., Fast Pyrolysis of Residues from Paper Mill Industry to Bio-oil and Value Chemicals: Optimization Studies, Energy Procedia, 2015, 74, 933-941, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.724 

Źródło 12: Efika E.C., Onwudili J.A.,Williams P.T., Products from the high temperature pyrolysis of RDF at slow and rapid heating rates,, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 2015, 112, 14-22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2015.01.004. 

Źródło 13:  Ethaib, S.; Omar, R.; Kamal, S.M.M.; Awang Biak, D.R.; Zubaidi, S.L. Microwave-Assisted Pyrolysis of Biomass Waste: A Mini Review. Processes 2020, 8, 1190. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8091190 

 

1. The manuscript contains an excessive number of headings, which affects readability. The headings and titles should be refined. The overall structure would also benefit from including methodology and results/discussion sections. 

Response: We agree that too many headings can affect readability. In the revised version, we refined and streamlined the section titles, reducing the overall number of headings. To further align the paper with the classical IMRAD structure, the methodological description and case study details were integrated under Materials and Methods, while the findings and their interpretation were combined under Results and Discussion. 

 

1. An elaborate discussion of pyrolysis in section 3 is not necessary as it is not intended as a review paper. It would be more appropriate to provide references to relevant literature. 

Response: We understand the reviewer’s concern that the discussion of pyrolysis in Section 3 may appear too detailed. However, we consider this broader technological context essential to justify the assumptions used later in the LCOW analysis. Our intention was not to provide a review paper but rather to ensure that readers have sufficient background to assess the validity of the economic results. For this reason, we decided to retain the existing description, complemented with literature references, as necessary context for the cost analysis. 

 

1. Presenting the information on Ln 236 in a table would improve readability. 

 

Response: We would like to thank the Reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We fully agree that presenting the pyrolysis gas composition in a tabular format improves readability and clarity. Accordingly, in the revised manuscript, we have reorganised the description of flammable and non-flammable gases into a table. This modification allows for a clearer classification of the compounds and a more concise presentation of their origin during the pyrolysis process. 

 

 

1. O in LCOW is omitted in Ln 295 

Response: Corrections were made as suggested, thank you. 

1. In Ln 374, the reference cited adopted co-pyrolysis using tires. Authors should consider finding a suitable reference for their analysis. 

 

 

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation concerning the use of a co-pyrolysis reference. We agree that a more specific reference to textile-only pyrolysis can further strengthen our discussion. Therefore, we will also include the recent work of Arjona et al. (2024), which provides a detailed analysis of the pyrolysis of pure cotton, polyester, and their blends. At the same time, we consider the study by Dziok et al. (2025) to be relevant as well, since it includes experiments combining textile fractions (cotton and polyester) with other waste streams and thus offers valuable insights into the behavior of textiles under pyrolytic conditions. In our analysis, this reference was not intended to generalize tire pyrolysis, but rather to support the assumptions regarding textile performance in pyrolysis processes. For this reason, we believe it is appropriate to retain the Dziok et al. study, while complementing it with the Arjona et al. reference, to ensure a comprehensive technical basis for our LCOW analysis. 

 

Dziok, T.; Grycova, B.; Grzywacz, P.; Janus, R.; Wądrzyk, M.; Matejova, L.; Lestinsky, P.; Bury, M.; Soprych, P.; Klemencova, K.; et al. Studies on the Changes in the Characteristics of Co-Pyrolysis Products of Discarded Car Tires with Cotton and Polyester Textile Waste. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 2025, 189, 107090, doi:10.1016/j.jaap.2025.107090. 

 

Arjona, L.; Barrós, I.; Montero, Á.; Solís, R.R.; Pérez, A.; Martín-Lara, M.Á.; Blázquez, G.; Calero, M. Pyrolysis of Textile Waste: A Sustainable Approach to Waste Management and Resource Recovery. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 2024, 12, 114730, doi:10.1016/j.jece.2024.114730. 

 

 

1. There is an unnecessary heading at Ln 486. Also. the description of the figure should be placed before the figure, not below it. 

 

Response: Corrections were made as suggested, thank you. 

 

 

1. In Ln 528, the authors' use of LCOW differs from standard LCOE definition because it includes revenue/benefits, which defeats its purpose as a pure cost metric. Otherwise, authors should provide a basis for this analogy. 

 

Response: We agree with the reviewer that the classical definition of both LCOE and LCOW refers strictly to costs, without accounting for revenues. In our study, we deliberately adopted an extended formulation that incorporates potential revenues from by-products. This choice reflects the specific market and policy context of waste management, where revenues can offset part of the treatment costs and thus directly influence tariff setting and subsidy design. We acknowledge that this differs from previous LCOW applications, which treated the indicator as a cost-only metric, but we argue that this adaptation provides a more realistic tool for decision-making in waste management systems. We have clarified this distinction in the manuscript and explained the rationale behind our approach 

 

1. I expected the conclusion to compare your LCOW results to existing benchmarks, discuss implications for your case study of Polish waste policies, assess whether pyrolysis economics match current incentives, acknowledge the limitations of your LCOW method, and provide recommendations based on your findings. 

Response: We agree and have expanded the Conclusions. They now include  (i) implications for Polish waste policy (support needed for small-scale plants), (ii) limitations of our LCOW model (simplified feedstock, average costs, deterministic sensitivity only), and (iii) recommendations for future research (mixed textile streams, uncertainty modelling, comparative analyses). 

 

1. Given that LCOE and existing definition of LCOW is a cost-only metric, how does this alternative approach, which includes revenue and other benefits, provide a more realistic final cost as claimed in Ln 611? 

Response: In our work, we intentionally proposed a revenue-inclusive formulation, not to turn LCOW into a profitability indicator, but to reflect the actual financial framework in which waste management projects operate. Including revenues allows LCOW to approximate the net system cost that municipalities or investors would effectively face, making it more directly applicable to tariff planning and subsidy design. We therefore clarified in the text that our approach represents an extended LCOW, while previous studies retained a strict cost-only definition. 

 

1. The LCOE analogy used throughout the work is problematic because LCOE and standard LCOW definitions are designed as pure cost metrics. Traditional LCOE and LCOW isolate costs usually to enable fair technology comparisons, while your revenue-inclusive LCOW becomes a profitability measure that cannot serve this analogous function. Authors should consider realigning the discussions in this work accordingly. 

 

Response: We clarified in the manuscript that while LCOE served as the conceptual starting point, our LCOW formulation is an adapted tool. Its purpose is not to provide a strict analogy to LCOE but rather to offer a practical planning instrument tailored to the specific conditions of waste management systems. 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work provides a Levelised Cost of Waste (LCOW) indicator, modelled on the Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) from the energy sector, as a planning and decision-making tool in the waste management sector. There are some valuable results. This paper can be accepted after solving problems.

1. The relationship between municipal waste and low-carbon development should be given. Some references are recommended to read and cited, such as https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enchem.2024.100133.
2. There is no references in line 54-76. The reliability of this content is low.
3. The difference between new LCOW indicator and classical indicators should be compared.
4. How accurate is LCOW? Has it been verified?
5. What is the application prospect of LCOW?
6. There are a large number of formatting errors. Please revise.
7. There are only four figures. It is suggested to reorganize the article and providing readable Figures and Tables.
8. It is suggested to add a quantitative summary.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank Reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments and suggestions provided. We highly appreciate the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our work. The feedback has been extremely helpful in improving the clarity, structure, and scientific value of the article. 

In the revised version, we have addressed all comments point by point. Where possible, we introduced the requested changes directly into the manuscript (e.g., by adding references, clarifying the definition and purpose of LCOW, expanding comparisons with classical indicators, or including additional tables). In cases where we considered that the original content already covered the reviewer’s concern, we explained our reasoning in detail. 

Below we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to all comments, indicating the corresponding changes in the revised manuscript. 

1. The relationship between municipal waste and low-carbon development should be given. Some references are recommended to read and cited, such as https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enchem.2024.100133. 

Response: We agree that the issue of linking municipal waste management with low-carbon development requires emphasis. We have supplemented the introduction with a brief discussion on this topic and added the recommended literature. 

1. There is no references in line 54-76. The reliability of this content is low. 

Response: We have addressed this comment by adding the missing references.  

1. The difference between new LCOW indicator and classical indicators should be compared. 

Response: We have expanded Section 5 to explicitly compare LCOW with classical indicators such as NPV, IRR, and simple unit cost 

1. How accurate is LCOW? Has it been verified? 

Response: LCOW was verified through sensitivity analysis (Figures 3–4) and by comparison with results reported in the literature. We added an explanation that its accuracy depends on the quality of input data and that the method provides results comparable to other techno-economic analyses. 

1. What is the application prospect of LCOW? 

Response: We agree that this issue is important. However, we would like to emphasize that it has already been addressed in the manuscript, particularly in the Conclusions section, which was further expanded following this comment. In that section, we indicated that LCOW can serve as: 

• a tool for tariff planning in waste management, 

• a basis for determining the level of funding or subsidies (“financial gap”), 

• and a benchmark indicator for comparing different waste treatment technologies (e.g., pyrolysis, anaerobic digestion, incineration). 

1. There are a large number of formatting errors. Please revise. 

Response: We carefully revised the manuscript and corrected the identified errors 

1. There are only four figures. It is suggested to reorganize the article and providing readable Figures and Tables. 

Response: In the revised version, we have added three additional tables to improve clarity and readability: 

• a comparative table (LCOW vs. classical indicators), 

• a summary table of LCOW results, 

• a table presenting the composition of pyrolysis gas. 

1. It is suggested to add a quantitative summary. 

Response: In the revised version, we have included a short table that summarises the LCOW results for the three analysed scales 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article titled “Assessing Efficiency in the Circular Economy Using the Levelized Cost of Waste: A Case Study of Textile Waste Pyrolysis”.

It is an interesting work and complies with the journal's publication guidelines. From the review, there are only a few comments that can be improved so that the work has greater clarity for its publication, which are mentioned below:

 

• Introductory section line 35 separate Poland[1]
• Line 55 separate [5].Only
• Line 94 remove parentheses from ([6]).
• Leave at least two citations of this section line 126 [11,17]
• line 337 searches for a different quote than [12]
• Line 432, try to repeat a quote as little as possible, for example [49], look for another source [49,52].
• Linea 452 mismo caso anterior buscar fuentes de informacion diferente  [12,49,53–55].
• Lines 452 through 592 no longer have any citations found. Please add more citation information for discussion.
• Overall, the research work is interesting; however, its scientific contribution is still limited. Although relevant findings are presented, the study could be strengthened through more rigorous review and adaptation. Authors are advised to carefully review the journal's article preparation guidelines, as the submitted structure does not correspond to the classic format of a scientific article, which typically includes: abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion, and conclusions.
• Adhering to these guidelines will significantly improve the quality of the manuscript, especially in the presentation and interpretation of the results. While the findings presented are relevant, the discussion lacks an in-depth comparative analysis with similar works, which is essential to strengthen the results. Therefore, it is recommended to include updated and relevant references that allow for a critical and objective comparison of the advances of this study with research previously reported in the scientific literature. This approach will not only enrich the discussion but also strengthen the bibliographic support and academic impact of the article.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank Reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for providing constructive and helpful comments. Your suggestions have been very valuable in improving the clarity, structure, and readability of the paper. 

In the revised version, we have addressed each point one by one. In many cases, the requested corrections were implemented directly (e.g., formatting, citation style, and references). In other places, we clarified the rationale for keeping the original content when we considered it essential for methodological consistency.  

Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response to all comments, with references to the corresponding line numbers in the revised manuscript. 

1. Introductory section line 35 separate Poland[1] 

Response: Formatting has been corrected as recommended, thank you. 

1. Line 55 separate [5].Only 

Response: Corrections were made as suggested, thank you. 

1. Line 94 remove parentheses from ([6]). 

Response: Corrections were made as suggested, thank you. 

1. Leave at least two citations of this section line 126 [11,17] 

Response: In the revised version, we clarified the sentence and improved the citation style to avoid any ambiguity. The text was reformulated to explicitly link the findings with the relevant references. 

Original text (line 126): 

“In particular, mercury-containing dyes and auxiliaries have been used in the past, however their use has now been significantly restricted by regulations such as REACH and the Oeko-Tex guidelines. Studies by Rovira and co-workers and [11,17] imply a low level of potential exposure through dermal contact.” 

Revised text: 

“Studies have shown that the mercury content in clothing samples was below 20 µg Hg/kg, which implies a low level of potential exposure through dermal contact [11,17]. These results confirm that the European regulations, such as REACH and the Oeko-Tex guidelines, have effectively limited the presence of mercury and other heavy metals in textiles intended for daily use.” 

 

1. line 337 searches for a different quote than [12] 

Response: In the original manuscript at line 337 there was no citation of [12]. However, following the reviewer’s comment we carefully reviewed all other occurrences of this reference throughout the text. In our opinion, reference [12] remains appropriate and relevant, as it provides experimental results that directly involve textile-derived fractions, which are central to our analysis. For this reason, we decided to keep this source in the revised version. 

1. Line 432, try to repeat a quote as little as possible, for example [49], look for another source [49,52]. 

Response: We agree that repeatedly citing the same source may reduce the apparent diversity of the literature base. However, in this case publication [49] plays a key role, as it describes the adopted cost estimation methodology. Frequent references to it are intended to emphasise the consistency of the applied assumptions and to avoid double-counting of the same components. For this reason, we have retained the repeated citations in this part of the text. It should also be stressed that the sources providing the input data for comparisons are diverse and do not overlap, ensuring the substantive variety of the analytical basis. In addition, the overall literature base of the manuscript has been enriched with new references to strengthen the discussion and provide broader context. 

1. Linea 452 mismo caso anterior buscar fuentes de informacion diferente  [12,49,53–55]. 

Response: Similar to the explanation given above 

1. Lines 452 through 592 no longer have any citations found. Please add more citation information for discussion. 

Response: We agree that this section required stronger bibliographic support. In the revised version, we have added references to relevant techno-economic analyses. 

1. Overall, the research work is interesting; however, its scientific contribution is still limited. Although relevant findings are presented, the study could be strengthened through more rigorous review and adaptation. Authors are advised to carefully review the journal's article preparation guidelines, as the submitted structure does not correspond to the classic format of a scientific article, which typically includes: abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion, and conclusions. 

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important remark. According to the Energies guidelines, some flexibility in article structure is acceptable (for example, combining results and discussion). Nevertheless, in order to align the manuscript more closely with the classical IMRAD format, we revised the section titles and reduced the number of headings 

1. Adhering to these guidelines will significantly improve the quality of the manuscript, especially in the presentation and interpretation of the results. While the findings presented are relevant, the discussion lacks an in-depth comparative analysis with similar works, which is essential to strengthen the results. Therefore, it is recommended to include updated and relevant references that allow for a critical and objective comparison of the advances of this study with research previously reported in the scientific literature. This approach will not only enrich the discussion but also strengthen the bibliographic support and academic impact of the article. 

Response: Following the reviewer’s recommendation, we have expanded the Discussion and Conclusions 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the major concerns. However, the following issue should be resolved before the article can be accepted:

Section 2 currently has only one subheading (2.1), which is not appropriate. Additionally, Section 2 should not be titled Background when Section 1 already serves that purpose. For example, Section 2 could be retitled Overview of Textile Waste Pyrolysis and divided into subheadings such as:

• 2.1 Background (should be very brief and concise)

• 2.2 Sources and Characteristics of Textile Waste

• 2.3 Pyrolysis Treatment of Textile Waste

A similar revision should also be applied to Section 3.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comment and helpful suggestion to improve the structure and clarity of the manuscript.

Following your recommendation, we have revised both Section 2 and Section 3 to ensure a more consistent and logical structure in accordance with the Energies editorial style.

Specifically, Section 2 has been retitled to “Overview of Textile Waste Pyrolysis” and reorganized into three subsections:

• 2.1. Sources and Characteristics of Textile Waste,
• 2.2. Composition and Physicochemical Properties of Textile Waste,
• 2.3. Pyrolysis Treatment of Textile Waste.

This restructuring improves the logical flow of the section and eliminates the redundant use of the term Background. The content itself remains unchanged.

Additionally, Section 3 has been divided into two subsections:

• 3.1. Conceptual Framework
• 3.2. Mathematical Formulation
• 3.3. Data and Assumptions.

These modifications enhance the manuscript’s readability and bring the presentation of sections in line with the Energies formatting and structural standards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accepted. 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comment and helpful suggestion to improve the structure and clarity of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments on the article review Assessing Efficiency in the Circular Economy Using the Lev-elized Cost of Waste: A Case Study of Textile Waste Pyrolysis

Dear authors:

I appreciate the attention given to the comments made in the previous review. Overall, the manuscript shows a significant improvement compared to the previous version, showing a structure more in line with the guidelines established by the journal.

However, during this new review, some aspects were noted that could still be strengthened:

 

1. Quote number 21 on line 197 should be removed from the text. The integration of that quote seems very forced. Look for another quote or leave only 39.
2. line 207 space between the quote [40] and the word applications
3. Line 460 quote [21] is forced to appear with quote [64], delete quote 21 or look for other information.
4. Line 481 change table 2 to Table 2.
5. Line 374, Citation 21 reappears, you can search for another citation or source of information.
6. Line 441, appointment 21 again, please change.

7.     Line 446, same situation is repeated reference 218.     Line 460 same situation is repeated reference 21

9. Repetitive use of citation number 21 was identified, and it is recommended that it be replaced or the corresponding references be diversified.
10. In the results and discussion section, it is suggested that the analysis be expanded by incorporating a comparative scientific discussion that contrasts the study's findings with previous research. Currently, this section lacks citations or references to support the theoretical debate, which limits the academic foundation of the work.
11. It is recommended that the presentation of this section be reviewed in accordance with the journal's editorial criteria to ensure consistency and formal compliance.
12. Finally, it was noted that citation number 65 appears in the conclusions section; please check the journal's guidelines to see if it is appropriate to include references in this section.
13. I once again appreciate your dedication and the effort reflected in the improvements to the manuscript. I am confident that, with these adjustments, the article will achieve greater academic solidity and clarity of exposition.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comment and helpful suggestion to improve the structure and clarity of the manuscript.

1. Quote number 21 on line 197 should be removed from the text. The integration of that quote seems very forced. Look for another quote or leave only 39.

Response: 

Corrected.

1. line 207 space between the quote [40] and the word applications

Response: 

Corrected.

1. Line 460 quote [21] is forced to appear with quote [64], delete quote 21 or look for other information.

Response: 

Corrected.

1. Line 481 change table 2 to Table 2.

Response: 

Corrected.

1. Line 374, Citation 21 reappears; you can search for another citation or source of information.

Response: 

We appreciate the Reviewer’s observation regarding the repeated use of citation [21]. The authors would like to clarify that the analytical framework and the baseline data adopted in this study are primarily derived from the experimental work of Dziok et al. [21]. This publication provides the key reference values and process parameters for textile waste pyrolysis, which were essential for the economic evaluation presented in the paper.

 To make this clearer to the reader, we have added the following explanatory sentence in Section 3.3:

“It should be noted that the analytical assumptions and baseline data adopted in this study are primarily based on the work of Dziok et al. [21]. Their research provided the reference values for textile waste pyrolysis efficiency and product distribution, which served as the foundation for the subsequent LCOW-based economic assessment.”

1. Line 441, appointment 21 again, please change.

Response: 

As per the reviewer’s suggestion, reference [21] has been removed from the manuscript. The citation was deleted in lines 441, 446 and 460.

7. Line 446, the same situation is repeated, reference 21

Response: 

As per the reviewer’s suggestion, reference [21] has been removed from the manuscript. The citation was deleted in lines 441, 446 and 460.

8. Line 460, the same situation is repeated, reference 21

Response: 

As per the reviewer’s suggestion, reference [21] has been removed from the manuscript. The citation was deleted in lines 441, 446 and 460.

1. Repetitive use of citation number 21 was identified, and it is recommended that it be replaced or the corresponding references be diversified.

Response: 

As per the reviewer’s suggestion, reference [21] has been removed from the manuscript. The citation was deleted in lines 441, 446 and 460.

1. In the results and discussion section, it is suggested that the analysis be expanded by incorporating a comparative scientific discussion that contrasts the study's findings with previous research. Currently, this section lacks citations or references to support the theoretical debate, which limits the academic foundation of the work.

Response: 

Following your suggestion, we have expanded the discussion by briefly comparing our LCOW results with previous studies

1. It is recommended that the presentation of this section be reviewed in accordance with the journal's editorial criteria to ensure consistency and formal compliance.

Response: 

Thank you for this remark. The manuscript has been carefully reviewed to ensure consistency with the Energies editorial criteria. Minor adjustments have already been made to improve formatting and, section alignment.

The authors acknowledge that a final editorial check and formatting correction will be performed after the review process is completed

1. Finally, it was noted that citation number 65 appears in the conclusions section; please check the journal's guidelines to see if it is appropriate to include references in this section.

Response: 

Thank you for pointing this out. Accordingly, the reference [65] originally appearing in the Conclusions section has been removed. The sentence was rephrased to maintain its informational content without direct citation.

1. I once again appreciate your dedication and the effort reflected in the improvements to the manuscript. I am confident that, with these adjustments, the article will achieve greater academic solidity and clarity of exposition.

Response: 

We are grateful for your positive assessment and the acknowledgement of our improvements. Your feedback has been invaluable in further refining the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx