A Framework for Assessing the Potential of Artificial Intelligence in the Circular Bioeconomy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Recommendation: Major revision
Comments:
This article introduces a novel framework for assessing and harnessing the role of AI to facilitate the transition towards the Circular Bioeconomy, which can provide some valuable information for the researchers in this field. Based on its present format, several items should be addressed before it can be accepted by Sustainability.

1. Specific data should be presented in the Introduction section as support.
2. It is recommended to provide intuitive charts to show that artificial intelligence provides new paths for solving existing pain points in the Introduction.
3. Recent reviews on bio-based products should be cited in the “2.1 Circular Bioeconomy” part, such as Advanced Materials, 2024, 2311242; Molecules, 2024, 29, 4428; Polymer Degradation and Stability, 2024, 229, 110988, and so on.
4. There are two occurrences of part 2.1, “2.1. Circular Bioeconomy” and “2.1. Artificial Intelligence”.
5. In Section 3.2, we propose to add how AI can cope with the complexity unique to the bioeconomy, listing possible solutions to some of these specific problems.

Author Response

• Comment 1: Specific data should be presented in the Introduction section as support.
• Response: We agree that this can strengthen the introduction section. Considering this, we have made major changes in the introduction section.
• Comment 2: It is recommended to provide intuitive charts to show that artificial intelligence provides new paths for solving existing pain points in the Introduction. Figure 1…. Ref early …
• Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added a new conceptual figure (now Figure 1) to the Introduction section, which visually situates the paper at the intersection of AI, Bioeconomy, and Circular Economy and links this to intended outcomes. We believe this provides an intuitive overview early on. The original Figure 1, which provides detailed examples within the framework, has been renumbered (now Figure 2) and is referenced later in Section 3 where the framework is explained in detail.
• Comment 3: Recent reviews on bio-based products should be cited in the “2.1 Circular Bioeconomy” part, such as Advanced Materials, 2024, 2311242; Molecules, 2024, 29, 4428; Polymer Degradation and Stability, 2024, 229, 110988, and so on.
• Response: We appreciate the reviewer pointing out these relevant recent reviews. Section 2.1 is intended to give a brief conceptual overview. Biobased products are discussed a dedicated CBE domain in section 3.1. considering the reviewers suggestion, we have made changes in the section 3.1 instead.  
• Comment 4: There are two occurrences of part 2.1, “2.1. Circular Bioeconomy” and “2.1. Artificial Intelligence”.
• Response: Thank you for catching this error. We have corrected the numbering in the revised manuscript. The subsection "Artificial Intelligence" is now correctly numbered as 2.2.
• Comment 5: In Section 3.2, we propose to add how AI can cope with the complexity unique to the bioeconomy, listing possible solutions to some of these specific problems.
• Response: This was a valuable suggestion. We have revised Section 3.2 ("Key Functions of AI"). For each AI function described, we have added specific examples demonstrating how it can address complexities unique to the bioeconomy, such as handling feedstock variability, navigating non-linear biological processes, integrating diverse data types, or dealing with spatial heterogeneity.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the main aim of this study is to propose an coherent methodology for assessing if how and when the use of AI in circular economy is required

this study is very thorough. The main ideas are not new but a great effort in emerging them into a coherent framework for CBE  was done and the large number of citation proves that.

to properly train an AI large amounts of data are required (Tb order) as the authors also states. Yet, it is not very clear if in this domain this quantity of data is available at least on mid term.

the conclusion are good and convincing

so the paper is sound and safe

Author Response

• Comment: ...to properly train an AI large amounts of data are required... Yet, it is not very clear if in this domain this quantity of data is available at least on mid term.
• Response: We acknowledge the importance of data availability. While our original manuscript discussed data challenges (Section 5), we have refined this discussion to better clarify the current state and acknowledge the uncertainty regarding mid-term data availability at the scale required for some AI applications, framing it as a key area for future infrastructure development and collaboration (See revised Section 5). We also emphasize the framework's utility in identifying areas where current data might be sufficient or where data generation efforts should be prioritized.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks for giving me the opportunity to review the following article ‘A framework for assessing the potential of Artificial Intelligence in the Circular Bioeconomy’. I really enjoyed reading this article. The problem addressed in this article is essential and need of the hour. The following are the comments on the manuscript:

1. The title is okay.
2. Major findings of the study are missing. Provide some more insights into the methods used in this study.    
3. In the introduction, lines 34 – 37 need clarity. How CBE leverage AI technology? Introduction fails to provide concrete details about CBE. Why is it needed? What is the impact of CBE in environmental pollution? More emphasis must be on CBE. Then, the role of AI has to be clarified. Provide the contributions of this study. Consider framing research objectives or questions.       
4. The literature review has to be critically articulated. Discussion on earlier studies is missing completely. Consider providing a separate section titled research gaps and contributions. Here, highlight the research gaps identified and elaborate on the research contributions.   
5. The framework needs to be explained clearly. Fig. 1 reference? Explain about the synchronization of CBE and AI.            
6. Remove redundant data in Section 4. Present conclusively.   
7. In Section 5, comparison with earlier studies has to be made radically. How different the findings of this study are from earlier studies need to be mentioned. Highlight the similarities and dissimilarities of this work with earlier works.
8. In conclusion, the findings need to be presented explicitly. Avoid redundant data.
9. Regarding references, prefer latest articles. Consider the following articles for improving the theoretical foundation, results and discussions.

• Impact of Circular Bioeconomy on Industry’s Sustainable Performance: A Critical Literature Review and Future Research Directions Analysis
• Towards Sustainability: Mapping Interrelationships among Barriers to Circular Bio-Economy in the Indian Leather Industry
• Toward a sustainable future: integrating circular economy in the digitally advanced supply chain
• Key drivers for the incorporation of artificial intelligence in humanitarian supply chain management

The topic discussed in this article is interesting. However, there are a few shortcomings. Hope, addressing the above comments will help in improving the manuscript. Hence, a MAJOR REVISION was recommended.

Author Response

• Comment 2: Abstract - Major findings... are missing. Provide some more insights into the methods used...
• Response: We have revised the Abstract to be more informative. It now mentions the methods used (literature synthesis for framework development, framework-guided review for case study) and includes key findings, such as the framework's structure (mapping 8 AI functions across 10 CBE domains) and a key insight from the case study (current AI focus on prediction/optimization vs. gaps in discovery/design).
• Comment 3: Introduction - lines 34 – 37 need clarity. How CBE leverage AI technology? Introduction fails to provide concrete details about CBE. Why is it needed? What is the impact...? More emphasis must be on CBE. Then, the role of AI has to be clarified. Provide the contributions... Consider framing research objectives or questions.
• Response: We have substantially revised the Introduction to address these points. We have clarified the text, provided more detail on the CBE concept and its necessity/impact, explicitly stated how AI can contribute (linking its capabilities to CBE challenges), and added a clear list of the paper's specific aims and the central research question guiding the study. We also incorporated a new Figure 1 for conceptual clarity.
• Comment 4: The literature review has to be critically articulated. Discussion on earlier studies is missing completely. Consider providing a separate section titled research gaps and contributions...
• Response: We have added a new subsection (2.3 Literature review: research gaps, and contributions) that critically discusses existing frameworks related to AI, CE, and CBE, explicitly identifies key research gaps based on this review, and clearly positions our paper's contributions in addressing these gaps. We have also added  more analytical depth in the background subsections (2.1 and 2.2).
• Comment 5: The framework needs to be explained clearly. Fig. 1 reference? Explain about the synchronization of CBE and AI.
• Response: We have revised the introductory paragraphs of Section 3 to improve clarity. We explicitly state the framework's structure (two components: CBE Areas, AI Functions) and purpose. We clarified the figure reference (original Figure 1 is now Figure 2, referenced in Section 3). Crucially, we added text explicitly explaining the framework's core mechanism – the synchronization achieved through the systematic mapping of AI functions onto CBE areas, as detailed in Table 1.
• Comment 6: Remove redundant data in Section 4. Present conclusively.
• Response: We have revised Section 4 to address potential redundancy and enhance conclusiveness. In subsection 4.1.2 (Key findings), we consolidated citations and examples where appropriate to streamline the presentation. In subsection 4.2 (Case Study Insights), we strengthened the summary of findings, explicitly linked the insights back to the application of the framework, and refined the concluding reflection on the framework's utility.
• Comment 7: In Section 5, comparison with earlier studies has to be made radically. How different the findings of this study are from earlier studies need to be mentioned...
• Response: Thank you for this important suggestion. We have added a new subsection (5.1 Comparison with Existing Frameworks) dedicated to addressing this point. This section explicitly compares our proposed framework with relevant earlier approaches discussed in Section 2.3, highlighting similarities but strongly emphasizing the key dissimilarities and unique contributions of our work (e.g., CBE specificity, granular mapping, integrated perspective), aiming for the "radical" comparison requested.
• Comment 8: In conclusion, the findings need to be presented explicitly. Avoid redundant data.
• Response: We have revised the Conclusion (Section 6) to present the main findings more explicitly (summarizing the core contribution of the framework and key insights from its application) and to be more concise, synthesizing the discussion of challenges and future work to avoid extensive repetition from Section 5.
• Comment 9: Regarding references, prefer latest articles. Consider the following articles...
• Response: We appreciate the suggestion and the recommended articles. We have reviewed our references to ensure inclusion of recent and relevant work, including incorporating the specific 2024 articles suggested by Reviewer 1. We have also reviewed the articles suggested by Reviewer 3 and incorporated citations where they significantly strengthen the theoretical foundation or discussion, particularly in the new comparison subsection (5.1) and the literature review (2.3).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Describe existing bio-based products and cite relevant references in 3.1 part，which is helpful for the  experimental research progress of bio-based products. 

Author Response

Reviewer comment: "Describe existing bio-based products and cite relevant references in 3.1 part，which is helpful for the  experimental research progress of bio-based products. " 

Response: We have significantly revised the "Bio-Based productions", a subsection in section 3.1 considering your suggestions. The revised text now includes discussion and citations from recent relevant review articles, including the valuable examples you suggested from Advanced Materials, Molecules, and Polymer Degradation and Stability, among others. Please see the changes in the revised version attached. 

thanks again for your time and available suggestions. 

Regards!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all the comments satisfactorily. Hence, the article could be considered for possible publication. 

Author Response

Thanks again for your time, and the valuable comment and prompt review 

regards.