Turning Waste Wool into a Circular Resource: A Review of Eco-Innovative Applications in Agriculture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Turning Waste Wool into a Circular Resource: A Review of Eco-Innovative Applications in Agriculture” addresses the topic of using wool waste in agriculture in the context of the circular economy. The article is a review article. Many articles have been analyzed, but the research results resulting from these articles are not presented, e.g. presentation of pollutants present in wool, comparison of the impact of wool on soil properties by different researchers. Why does the analysis concern only Europe?

Subsections 3.1 and 3.2 are rather methodological

It is worth expanding the analysis to include economic aspects and more detailed data on environmental threats.

In general, the article is correct

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers

Turning waste wool into a circular resource.

A review of eco-innovative applications in agriculture

 

Dear Editor, Dear Section Managing Editor Tanya Han, and Dear Reviewers,

First, we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and their insightful comments and suggestions. Below we respond to the comments of each reviewer in detail (with reviewer comments in bold and our responses in blue). We are also providing a revised manuscript that reflects their suggestions and comments, with changes highlighted in blue. We feel that this has resulted in a stronger manuscript. Please note that some minor grammatical changes (easily reflected in the revised paper) have been made to correct typos and improve the manuscript’s readability. Note also that the line numbering indicated in the responses refers to both the original manuscript [OMS] and the revised version [RMS] when necessary. Lastly, the references section has been revised when citations were changed, removed or added to the manuscript.

 

Best Regards.

Aldo Dal Prà

Manuscript ID: agronomy-3451195

Decision: major revision

Please revise the manuscript found at the above link according to the

reviewers' comments and upload the revised file *within 6 days*. Note the

following check-list:

(I) Ensure all references are relevant to the content of the manuscript.

(II) Highlight any revisions to the manuscript, so editors and reviewers can

see any changes made.

(III) Provide a cover letter to respond to the reviewers’ comments and

explain, point by point, the details of the manuscript revisions.

(IV) If the reviewer(s) recommended references, critically analyze them to

ensure that their inclusion would enhance your manuscript. If you believe

these references are unnecessary, you should not include them.

(V) If you found it impossible to address certain comments in the review

reports, include an explanation in your appeal.

 

REVIEWER REPORTS

Reviewer Comments:

 

Reviewer 1

R: 1) The article “Turning Waste Wool into a Circular Resource: A Review of Eco-Innovative Applications in Agriculture” addresses the topic of using wool waste in agriculture in the context of the circular economy. The article is a review article. Many articles have been analysed, but the research results resulting from these articles are not presented, e.g. presentation of pollutants present in wool, comparison of the impact of wool on soil properties by different researchers.

A: 1) Many thanks for your comments which are very pertinent. We added in section 5, ‘Research gaps and future direction’ a specific reference to the issue of pollutants in wool (lines 601-602). A targeted dissertation on the role of wool pollutants in the soil was not possible, as no specific data was found in the collected bibliographical records. The review has highlighted and discussed the data yielded by scientific literature as regards fertilizing, mulching, improving effects of wool on soil and plants growth. Given the complication to provide comparisons between different sectors of wool application (and within the sectors, as in some cases not so much literature is available), still we added (lines 530-536) some observations regarding pros and cons in using different wool products, integrating what reported in section 4 (lines 555-560).

R: 2) Why does the analysis concern only Europe?

A: 2) Thank you for highlighting this issue. All the records, selected according to the criteria reported in the manuscript, were considered and the geographical origins were reported by continent (Figure 2.). The prevalence of “Europe” mentions is due to the highest number of bibliographical records found and this (lines 490-491), in turn, can be linked to the European weaknesses of the wool supply chain (as reported in the introduction) which pushes European research to study applications of local wool alternative to the fashion-garment textile ones. Such a possible trend can be also connected to several European projects (lines 505-506) dealing with sheep wool in agriculture (including the one that funded this review). However, your remark is meaningful as it is desirable that, at a global level, more studies on sheep wool in agriculture will be conducted and more actions will be supported to coordinate different countries towards common goals for a more sustainable agriculture.

R: 3) Subsections 3.1 and 3.2 are rather methodological.

A: 3) Thanks for this comment. These subsections report the results obtained from the analysis of bibliographical records. The methodology is reported in section 2. We moved lines 220-221 (section 3) to section 2 (lines 180-181). These subsections report the amount and the geographical distribution of the analyzed papers and the domains that have been further analyzed in the following sections of section 3.

R: 4) It is worth expanding the analysis to include economic aspects and more detailed data on environmental threats.

A: 4) Thanks for the suggestions. The observation related to economic profitability is pertinent, but further studies are necessary. However, we added a comment (lines 515-519). 

In general, the article is correct.

Thanks a lot.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overview and General Assessment:

The manuscript presents an in-depth review of the potential applications of waste wool in agriculture within the framework of circular bioeconomy strategies. The focus on turning a by-product like sheep wool into valuable agricultural resources is highly relevant, addressing both environmental sustainability and innovative resource utilization. Overall, the research is relevant and the manuscript has scientific value, contributing to the field.

Specific Comments:

1)     The abstract is informative but could benefit from greater specificity regarding the major findings and implications of the review.

2)     There is limited critical analysis or comparison of methodologies and results. For example, the benefits and limitations of wool hydrolysates versus raw wool could be more explicitly contrasted.

3)     The discussion on environmental impacts (e.g., potential soil contamination from suint and lanolin) requires more depth and referencing.

4)     Although knowledge gaps are mentioned, they are not systematically summarized or emphasized in the conclusions. Consider adding a dedicated "Research Gaps and Future Directions" section that would clarify these aspects.

5)     There are occasional grammatical errors and instances of awkward phrasing. For example, "sheep wool should be considered as a wasted resource rather than a waste" could be rephrased for clarity.

6) Consider reorganizing the names of the sections to follow a logical flow for a review paper not for a research paper.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers

Turning waste wool into a circular resource.

A review of eco-innovative applications in agriculture

 

Dear Editor, Dear Section Managing Editor Tanya Han, and Dear Reviewers,

First, we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and their insightful comments and suggestions. Below we respond to the comments of each reviewer in detail (with reviewer comments in bold and our responses in blue). We are also providing a revised manuscript that reflects their suggestions and comments, with changes highlighted in blue. We feel that this has resulted in a stronger manuscript. Please note that some minor grammatical changes (easily reflected in the revised paper) have been made to correct typos and improve the manuscript’s readability. Note also that the line numbering indicated in the responses refers to both the original manuscript [OMS] and the revised version [RMS] when necessary. Lastly, the references section has been revised when citations were changed, removed or added to the manuscript.

 

Best Regards.

Aldo Dal Prà

Manuscript ID: agronomy-3451195

Decision: major revision

Please revise the manuscript found at the above link according to the

reviewers' comments and upload the revised file *within 6 days*. Note the

following check-list:

(I) Ensure all references are relevant to the content of the manuscript.

(II) Highlight any revisions to the manuscript, so editors and reviewers can

see any changes made.

(III) Provide a cover letter to respond to the reviewers’ comments and

explain, point by point, the details of the manuscript revisions.

(IV) If the reviewer(s) recommended references, critically analyze them to

ensure that their inclusion would enhance your manuscript. If you believe

these references are unnecessary, you should not include them.

(V) If you found it impossible to address certain comments in the review

reports, include an explanation in your appeal.

 

REVIEWER REPORTS

Reviewer Comments:

 

 

Reviewer 2

Overview and General Assessment:

 

The manuscript presents an in-depth review of the potential applications of waste wool in agriculture within the framework of circular bioeconomy strategies. The focus on turning a by-product like sheep wool into valuable agricultural resources is highly relevant, addressing both environmental sustainability and innovative resource utilization. Overall, the research is relevant and the manuscript has scientific value, contributing to the field.

 

Specific Comments:

R: 1) The abstract is informative but could benefit from greater specificity regarding the major findings and implications of the review.

A: 1) Thank you for the suggestion. We added in the abstract the most relevant findings regarding the use of waste wool in agriculture (lines 23-26).

R: 2) There is limited critical analysis or comparison of methodologies and results. For example, the benefits and limitations of wool hydrolysates versus raw wool could be more explicitly contrasted.

A: 2) Thank you for suggesting this analysis. Observations regarding pros and cons in using different wool products were added in section 4 line 521-523 and 530-536.

R: 3) The discussion on environmental impacts (e.g., potential soil contamination from suint and lanolin) requires more depth and referencing.

A: 3) Thank you for your suggestion. We added more information and some references (Lines 109-111 and 114-115). In addition, we added in section 5, ‘Research gaps and future direction’ a specific reference to the issue of pollutants in wool (lines 601-602).

R: 4) Although knowledge gaps are mentioned, they are not systematically summarized or emphasized in the conclusions. Consider adding a dedicated "Research Gaps and Future Directions" section that would clarify these aspects.

A: 4) Thank you for suggesting this section. We added section 5 "Research Gaps and Future Directions" before the conclusions to better highlight research gaps and boost further studies.

R: 5) There are occasional grammatical errors and instances of awkward phrasing. For example, "sheep wool should be considered as a wasted resource rather than a waste" could be rephrased for clarity.

A: 5) Thanks for your suggestion. We simplified the sentence for better understanding (Line 124). We also corrected some typos and had the text re-read by an expert (native language).

R: 6) Consider reorganizing the names of the sections to follow a logical flow for a review paper not for a research paper.

A: 6) Thanks for your comment. We agree with the reviewer to reorganize the paper index and the names of the sections more accurately reflecting the nature and the style of a review rather than of a research paper.

Therefore, the following modifications to the MS were performed:

• We replaced the title of the section "2. Materials and Methods" (which explains how the literature screening was carried out) with "2. Literature search and selection process".
• We substitute "3. Literature on sheep wool application in agriculture" for "3. Results" (where the collected literature is presented and illustrated and summarized by domain of application).
• Next, we adjusted the numbering of the subsequent subsections (for example, we replaced "3.2 Domains of sheep wool application" with "3.1 Domains of sheep wool application", and "3.2.1 Wool hydrolysate" with "3.1.1 Wool hydrolysate" and following sections.
• In addition, we added a specific section focused on "Research Gaps and Future Directions".

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main research question of the reviewed manuscript "Turning waste wool into a circular resource. A review of eco-innovative applications in agriculture", which is prepared in the form of a review, focuses on the transformation of waste sheep wool into a valuable resource within the framework of a circular bioeconomy. It seeks to provide a comprehensive overview of ecologically innovative applications of sheep wool to agricultural land to identify challenges and opportunities for its wider use. At the same time, it seeks appropriate ways of treating sheep wool so that its application is beneficial and "waste" becomes a valuable raw material.

From the point of view of originality, it is interesting to provide a systematic overview of various applications of sheep wool (e.g., as fertilizer, mulching material, substrate). Sheep wool is primarily used in the textile industry, but recently, it has become a waste in some countries for various reasons. The manuscript thus fills a specific gap in knowledge in the area of ​​economically advantageous and environmentally friendly use of waste sheep wool.

Suppose I evaluate the added value of the manuscript compared with other published materials. In that case, The assessed work is distinguished by its complexity and multidisciplinary approach, combining agronomic, environmental, and economic aspects of the use of sheep wool.

In the literary introduction, it would be appropriate to add information about other possible ways of using waste wool (in addition to the textile industry) and outside of agriculture so that the reader can get a broader idea of ​​the issue (e.g., construction, ....).

From the point of view of methodology (in this case, the method of data processing), the contribution appears to be correctly prepared. As for further adjustments (about the methodology) with an impact on the results, it is the expansion of other literary sources and, above all, the quantification of the positive impacts of the application of sheep wool fertilizer on individual crops and the long-term impact on soil fertility.

What is missing from the results is primarily the logistics issue (this is described a little using the example of Ireland). On the one hand, some farmers have no use for waste wool, but on the other hand, they can now somehow solve it. Let us look at the issue more from a global perspective. Production in individual regions can be quite different, and it can be challenging to transport "waste - sheep wool" over long distances economically and sustainably. Another addition would be an LCA analysis, which the authors talk about quite often but is not elaborated on in the article. It would be interesting to calculate using LCA how much carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced using processed wool instead of fertilizers. It should be possible to quantify - for example, by how many kg the use of industrial fertilizers, which significantly burden the environment, could be reduced. Furthermore, an analysis could be added of how far it would make sense to transport sheep wool for processing due to emissions during transport so that the results are still positive. It would also be interesting to add a table with the content of the primary nutrients in various sheep wool products and compare it with some standard (e.g., compost).

Suppose I evaluate the consistency of the conclusions with the information provided in the results section. In that case, they generally correspond to the presented evidence and arguments, especially about sheep wool's ecological and agronomic benefits. However, specific data and analyses do not sufficiently support some conclusions, such as economic profitability.

The linguistic level of the article is generally good; the scientific style is consistent and understandable. However, minor grammatical inaccuracies and stylistic ambiguities in the text could be improved by more careful language proofreading.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers

Turning waste wool into a circular resource.

A review of eco-innovative applications in agriculture

 

Dear Editor, Dear Section Managing Editor Tanya Han, and Dear Reviewers,

First, we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and their insightful comments and suggestions. Below we respond to the comments of each reviewer in detail (with reviewer comments in bold and our responses in blue). We are also providing a revised manuscript that reflects their suggestions and comments, with changes highlighted in blue. We feel that this has resulted in a stronger manuscript. Please note that some minor grammatical changes (easily reflected in the revised paper) have been made to correct typos and improve the manuscript’s readability. Note also that the line numbering indicated in the responses refers to both the original manuscript [OMS] and the revised version [RMS] when necessary. Lastly, the references section has been revised when citations were changed, removed or added to the manuscript.

 

Best Regards.

Aldo Dal Prà

Manuscript ID: agronomy-3451195

Decision: major revision

Please revise the manuscript found at the above link according to the

reviewers' comments and upload the revised file *within 6 days*. Note the

following check-list:

(I) Ensure all references are relevant to the content of the manuscript.

(II) Highlight any revisions to the manuscript, so editors and reviewers can

see any changes made.

(III) Provide a cover letter to respond to the reviewers’ comments and

explain, point by point, the details of the manuscript revisions.

(IV) If the reviewer(s) recommended references, critically analyze them to

ensure that their inclusion would enhance your manuscript. If you believe

these references are unnecessary, you should not include them.

(V) If you found it impossible to address certain comments in the review

reports, include an explanation in your appeal.

 

REVIEWER REPORTS

Reviewer Comments:

 

Review 3

The main research question of the reviewed manuscript "Turning waste wool into a circular resource. A review of eco-innovative applications in agriculture", which is prepared in the form of a review, focuses on the transformation of waste sheep wool into a valuable resource within the framework of a circular bioeconomy. It seeks to provide a comprehensive overview of ecologically innovative applications of sheep wool to agricultural land to identify challenges and opportunities for its wider use. At the same time, it seeks appropriate ways of treating sheep wool so that its application is beneficial and "waste" becomes a valuable raw material. From the point of view of originality, it is interesting to provide a systematic overview of various applications of sheep wool (e.g., as fertilizer, mulching material, substrate). Sheep wool is primarily used in the textile industry, but recently, it has become a waste in some countries for various reasons. The manuscript thus fills a specific gap in knowledge in the area of economically advantageous and environmentally friendly use of waste sheep wool. Suppose I evaluate the added value of the manuscript compared with other published materials. In that case, The assessed work is distinguished by its complexity and multidisciplinary approach, combining agronomic, environmental, and economic aspects of the use of sheep wool.

R: 1) In the literary introduction, it would be appropriate to add information about other possible ways of using waste wool (in addition to the textile industry) and outside of agriculture so that the reader can get a broader idea of the issue (e.g., construction, ....).

A: 1) Thanks for your useful suggestions. We better described such aspects (macro sectors) and added some references (lines 86-92).

R: 2) From the point of view of methodology (in this case, the method of data processing), the contribution appears to be correctly prepared. As for further adjustments (about the methodology) with an impact on the results, it is the expansion of other literary sources and, above all, the quantification of the positive impacts of the application of sheep wool fertilizer on individual crops and the long-term impact on soil fertility.

A: 2) Many thanks for the suggestion. We added the quantification of positive impact of wool on the most represented individual crops in subsection 3.2

R: 3) What is missing from the results is primarily the logistics issue (this is described a little using the example of Ireland). On the one hand, some farmers have no use for waste wool, but on the other hand, they can now somehow solve it. Let us look at the issue more from a global perspective. Production in individual regions can be quite different, and it can be challenging to transport "waste - sheep wool" over long distances economically and sustainably.

A: 3) We do agree that the management of waste wool is a crucial issue for assuring economic and environmental sustainability to this by-product in agriculture. In our Boolean research the few papers that studied this topic proposed the creation of collection/processing centers (see, for instance, reference [1, 107-109]. Thus, further research is needed to assess the impact of transportation from an economic and environmental perspective. We raised this argument in the "Research Gaps and Future Directions" (section 5), hoping to stimulate more studies on this subject.  

R: 4) Another addition would be an LCA analysis, which the authors talk about quite often but is not elaborated on in the article. It would be interesting to calculate using LCA how much carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced using processed wool instead of fertilizers. It should be possible to quantify - for example, by how many kg the use of industrial fertilizers, which significantly burden the environment, could be reduced.

A: 4) We agree with the reviewer that it would be interesting to calculate how much GHG emissions could be reduced using processed wool (for example pellet) instead of fertilizers. We added a section "Research Gaps and Future Directions" (section 5) in which we highlighted studies concerning LCA in wool value chain. Nonetheless, to the best of our knowledge, no complete LCA investigation has been conducted on wool-based fertilizers, that is the fertilizers obtained from low-quality wool that cannot be used for garment and fashion textiles or other applications.

R: 5) Furthermore, an analysis could be added of how far it would make sense to transport sheep wool for processing due to emissions during transport so that the results are still positive. It would also be interesting to add a table with the content of the primary nutrients in various sheep wool products and compare it with some standard (e.g., compost).

A: 5) Thanks for your useful suggestions. We added our considerations in lines 566-579.

R: 6) Suppose I evaluate the consistency of the conclusions with the information provided in the results section. In that case, they generally correspond to the presented evidence and arguments, especially about sheep wool's ecological and agronomic benefits. However, specific data and analyses do not sufficiently support some conclusions, such as economic profitability.

A: 6) The observation related to economic profitability is pertinent and further studies are necessary. We added a comment (lines 515-519).

R: 7) The linguistic level of the article is generally good; the scientific style is consistent and understandable. However, minor grammatical inaccuracies and stylistic ambiguities in the text could be improved by more careful language proofreading.

A: 7) Many thanks for your suggestion. We corrected typos and simplified some sentences.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The potential application of wool pellets is an increasing interest in agricultural practices, due to several reasons. The main options are the “circular economy” aspects more particularly in Europe. A greater interest is shown by the increased publication activity in the subject since the year of 2020. The authors also could cite more than 100 references in their review. The reason of such enhanced interest (particularly in Europe comparing to other continents) is not really known. Several aspects and reasons can be considered and finally it might be positive synergistic effect of using the wool in the agriculture, instead of the already accepted textile industry. It can be a question, therefore, how the various reasons might result such a great interest in research and change in the applications?  More wools are produced, what is the role of textile industry, or what is the rates of applying the wool due to the enhanced environmental safety aspects, beyond those enhanced agricultural interest? The authors are trying to answer of those aspects in their manuscript, however a table or figure about the reasons and its future could have a direct understanding by the potential readers. Support to the second objectives, regarding the “inherent challenges and potential opportunities for further studies” might require perhaps such a “state of art” summary.  

The authors are selecting papers, published in the last 24 years and reviewing its content on a well-structured way. The process, how they were doing it is shown in Figure 1. The size and its readability, however, could be improved to see the results on a better way. The same, i.e. to increase its size, can be suggested to Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 6, as well.

Regarding the available literature and the main domains its use, a well-detailed table is created. Subchapters are showing of those aspects, as the potential application methodology in agriculture and about the tested plants in Horti- and Agri-cultural practices. The reviewed results are providing the already known elements and detailed enough. Those 2 chapters are really the most valuable part of the manuscript. The study finally is finished by a summary in part 4., “Evidence from the selected papers”, that is showing again of the main aspects of the application. Reading the long text, we can realise several repetitions of the already mentioned facts coming from the previous chapters. Perhaps it would be better to focus in this final part 4, to the “suggestion for the future application” as the authors really wanted to give message for that particular point as one of their 2 mentioned objectives. It could be also interesting to learn, what the cited papers have concluded about the future research activities, and potential applications...etc?

Summarising the opinion, the manuscript is reviewing the “state of art” background about the wool as waste materials in the present and potential future agricultural practices. The authors are considering most of the literature in the last 24 years. There is a great interest regarding that topic, it can be suggested for publication after considering the required revision.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers

Turning waste wool into a circular resource.

A review of eco-innovative applications in agriculture

 

Dear Editor, Dear Section Managing Editor Tanya Han, and Dear Reviewers,

First, we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and their insightful comments and suggestions. Below we respond to the comments of each reviewer in detail (with reviewer comments in bold and our responses in blue). We are also providing a revised manuscript that reflects their suggestions and comments, with changes highlighted in blue. We feel that this has resulted in a stronger manuscript. Please note that some minor grammatical changes (easily reflected in the revised paper) have been made to correct typos and improve the manuscript’s readability. Note also that the line numbering indicated in the responses refers to both the original manuscript [OMS] and the revised version [RMS] when necessary. Lastly, the references section has been revised when citations were changed, removed or added to the manuscript.

 

Best Regards.

Aldo Dal Prà

Manuscript ID: agronomy-3451195

Decision: major revision

Please revise the manuscript found at the above link according to the

reviewers' comments and upload the revised file *within 6 days*. Note the

following check-list:

(I) Ensure all references are relevant to the content of the manuscript.

(II) Highlight any revisions to the manuscript, so editors and reviewers can

see any changes made.

(III) Provide a cover letter to respond to the reviewers’ comments and

explain, point by point, the details of the manuscript revisions.

(IV) If the reviewer(s) recommended references, critically analyze them to

ensure that their inclusion would enhance your manuscript. If you believe

these references are unnecessary, you should not include them.

(V) If you found it impossible to address certain comments in the review

reports, include an explanation in your appeal.

 

REVIEWER REPORTS

Reviewer Comments:

Review 4

R: 1) The potential application of wool pellets is an increasing interest in agricultural practices, due to several reasons. The main options are the “circular economy” aspects more particularly in Europe. A greater interest is shown by the increased publication activity in the subject since the year of 2020. The authors also could cite more than 100 references in their review. The reason of such enhanced interest (particularly in Europe comparing to other continents) is not really known. Several aspects and reasons can be considered and finally it might be positive synergistic effect of using the wool in the agriculture, instead of the already accepted textile industry. It can be a question, therefore, how the various reasons might result such a great interest in research and change in the applications?  More wools are produced, what is the role of textile industry, or what is the rates of applying the wool due to the enhanced environmental safety aspects, beyond those enhanced agricultural interest? The authors are trying to answer of those aspects in their manuscript, however a table or figure about the reasons and its future could have a direct understanding by the potential readers. Support to the second objectives, regarding the “inherent challenges and potential opportunities for further studies” might require perhaps such a “state of art” summary. 

A: 1) Thank you for your comments. All the records, selected according to the criteria reported in the manuscript, were considered and the geographical origins were reported by continent (Figure 2.). The prevalence of “Europe” mentions is due to the highest number of bibliographical records found and this (lines 490-491), in turn, can be linked to the European weaknesses of the wool supply chain (as reported in the introduction) which pushes European research to study applications of local wool alternative to the fashion-garment textile ones. Such a possible trend can be also connected to several European projects (lines 505-506) dealing with sheep wool in agriculture (including the one that funded this review). However, your remark is meaningful as it is desirable that, at a global level, more studies on sheep wool in agriculture will be conducted and more actions will be supported to coordinate different countries towards common goals for a more sustainable agriculture. We do agree that to support the second objective of the review a “state of art” summary is advisable, we added section 5 "Research Gaps and Future Directions" before the conclusions to better highlight research gaps and boost further studies.

R: 2) The authors are selecting papers, published in the last 24 years and reviewing its content on a well-structured way. The process, how they were doing it is shown in Figure 1. The size and its readability, however, could be improved to see the results on a better way. The same, i.e. to increase its size, can be suggested to Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 6, as well.

A: 2) Thanks so much, suggestion accepted.

R: 3) Regarding the available literature and the main domains its use, a well-detailed table is created. Subchapters are showing of those aspects, as the potential application methodology in agriculture and about the tested plants in Horti- and Agri-cultural practices. The reviewed results are providing the already known elements and detailed enough. Those 2 chapters are really the most valuable part of the manuscript. The study finally is finished by a summary in part 4., “Evidence from the selected papers”, that is showing again of the main aspects of the application. Reading the long text, we can realise several repetitions of the already mentioned facts coming from the previous chapters. Perhaps it would be better to focus on this final part 4, to the “suggestion for the future application” as the authors really wanted to give message for that point as one of their 2 mentioned objectives. It could be also interesting to learn, what the cited papers have concluded about the future research activities, and potential applications...etc?

A: 3) Thanks so much for the comments. As above mentioned, we added the section 5 to address research gaps and future directions.

Summarising the opinion, the manuscript is reviewing the “state of art” background about the wool as waste materials in the present and potential future agricultural practices. The authors are considering most of the literature in the last 24 years. There is a great interest regarding that topic, it can be suggested for publication after considering the required revision.

Thanks so much for the comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor,

The authors have amended the manuscript according to my comments/suggestions. Therefore, I believe it has a good quality for publication in the Agronomy Journal.

Thank you.