Material Circularity: A Novel Method for Biobased Carbon Quantification of Leather, Artificial Leather, and Trendy Alternatives
, Gustavo Adrián Defeo 3,*, Iacopo Galli 4, Saverio Bartalini 4 and Davide Mazzotti 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract: Looks vague. The purpose and contribution of the study have not been well-defined. Better follow this structure: Purpose, Method used, Results, Originality and Novelty. What is the AMS technique? Keywords need a check.
Introduction: Fails to strengthen the ground for the problem that is going to be addressed. Discussion on the significance of the study, earlier studies on the problem-focused, research gaps identified and how this work is going to address those identified research gaps need to be mentioned. Will be easy to follow, if the research questions that the study indents to answer are provided.
SCAR: Looks redundant. Can be presented in a crisp manner. Also, discuss Figure 1.
Validation of SCAR radiocarbon quantification against AMS: Mention the reason why the result of SCAR is compared with AMS and not with any other method. Figures and tables need to be discussed elaborately.
Measurement of biobased content of different leather types and alternative materials: Table 3 has to be discussed. Merely giving a table does not add value. A generalized can not be able to infer the results. Hence, it was recommended to discuss the table.
Conclusion: Avoid reference in this section. Also, avoid small paragraphs. The first paragraph contains only two lines. Why? Consider providing the conclusion in three paragraphs. First, summarize the whole study including the importance of the study, methods followed, and results obtained. Second, highlight the major contributions of the study. Third, state the limitations of the study while highlighting the future scope of this study.
The language proficiency of the manuscript needs much attention. Many typos errors and grammatical errors are there. A certificate from a native English speaker is much needed.
References: Insufficient.
Need much attention.
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer1
Abstract: Looks vague. The purpose and contribution of the study have not been well-defined. Better follow this structure: Purpose, Method used, Results, Originality and Novelty. What is the AMS technique? Keywords need a check.
We thank the reviewer for his remarks. We have accordingly rephrased the abstract in order to meet his suggestions. Now, in our opinion the problem is properly defined, as well as the method used (the SCAR spectroscopy) and the obtained results (the validation of the new technique with the benchmark AMS method). AMS is no longer cited in the abstract, but it is thoroughly described and discussed in the text (see also Ref.8).
Introduction: Fails to strengthen the ground for the problem that is going to be addressed. Discussion on the significance of the study, earlier studies on the problem-focused, research gaps identified and how this work is going to address those identified research gaps need to be mentioned. Will be easy to follow, if the research questions that the study indents to answer are provided.
According to the reviewer1 and reviewer3 suggestions, we have organized the introduction as follows:
- The first part describes the very general context of the future strategies that are / are going to be implemented for fighting climate changes.
- The second part puts a peculiar focus on the materials industry. With the specific sentences “...the need for scientifically backed analytical methods to support such claims.” and “it is important to understand the intrinsic contribution of bio-based / fossil carbon as a way to transparently discriminate against the most sustainable materials choices.” the main need waiting for a solution is properly defined.
- The third part identifies the research gaps, explains why the present technologies can not provide a complete solution to the previously defined need, and finally presents the solution.
We hope that, now, the hypothesis and goal are clearly identified.
SCAR: Looks redundant. Can be presented in a crisp manner. Also, discuss Figure 1.
We moved the descriptive section of the measurement to the paragraph describing the SCAR method. In our opinion now this section is more organic and clear. The presence of details may seem redundant, but it helps the reader understand the type of technique used.
Validation of SCAR radiocarbon quantification against AMS: Mention the reason why the result of SCAR is compared with AMS and not with any other method. Figures and tables need to be discussed elaborately.
The AMS is at present the widely-recognized, most general, precise and reliable method used for radiocarbon analyses. It is the most challenging and reliable benchmark for assessing the performance of the new SCAR method. The only other method used for radiocarbon analysis (LSC) would not allow for better validation.
Measurement of biobased content of different leather types and alternative materials: Table 3 has to be discussed. Merely giving a table does not add value. A generalized can not be able to infer the results. Hence, it was recommended to discuss the table.
According to the reviewer's suggestion, we have moved some discussions regarding the samples listed in the table from conclusions to this paragraph, and we have added further considerations. We hope now that the table is sufficiently discussed by showing all the interesting issues that can be related to the marketing of a “green sounding” product and its true sustainability value.
Conclusion: Avoid reference in this section. Also, avoid small paragraphs. The first paragraph contains only two lines. Why? Consider providing the conclusion in three paragraphs. First, summarize the whole study including the importance of the study, methods followed, and results obtained. Second, highlight the major contributions of the study. Third, state the limitations of the study while highlighting the future scope of this study.
We thank the reviewer for his valuable recommendations. Therefore, we have rephrased the conclusions and structured them into three paragraphs.
The language proficiency of the manuscript needs much attention. Many typos errors and grammatical errors are there. A certificate from a native English speaker is much needed.
At the reviewer’s suggestion, the manuscript was reviewed by a native English speaker, who helped to refine the linguistic quality.
References: Insufficient.
The assessment of biogenic content in materials with radiocarbon measurements is a fairly recent research field. We did our best to provide a broad overview of the existing literature on this “young” topic. We would be grateful if the reviewer could suggest further references, and we would be happy to add them.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Congratulations for your study on SCAR radiocarbon quantification as alternative procedure to set the bio based content on leather and artificial leather materials.
The experimental setup is clearly presented and the validation by comparing the results with AMS shows that the presented procedure is suitable for biobased content analysis.
Good luck with your future studies!
Author Response
Reviewer2:
We thank the reviewer for his very positive evaluation of our work.
No request for changes
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The introduction section can be more compact with less paragraphs. In the last paragraph, the hypothesis and goal should be clearly identified.
2. Dimension/weight/density of materials in Figure 1 are not mentioned for comparison purpose.
3. Both figure 3 and figure 4 are splitter into 2 pages.
4. TGA/IPS are also approaches to measure the carbon concentration, while XPS can measure the Nitrogen, the author should consider the pros and cons of other characterization techniques.
5. The author should consider the pre-treatment of the materials to exclude those potential impurities in the materials.
Understandable and readable.
Author Response
Reviewer3
- The introduction section can be more compact with less paragraphs. In the last paragraph, the hypothesis and goal should be clearly identified.
We thank the reviewer for his remarks. Accordingly, we have reduced the number of paragraphs in the first part of the introduction. Moreover, we have rephrased the last part in order to better identify the hypothesis and goal.
- Dimension/weight/density of materials in Figure 1 are not mentioned for comparison purpose.
We did not mention size/weight/density of materials, because this information is not relevant at all. The SCAR instrument only requires a minimum amount of carbon mass (about 6 mg, corresponding to 0.5 mmol of CO2). The measurement procedure and results will not depend on any other feature of the sample material, since an intensive physical quantity is measured, i.e. the mole fraction 14C/12C, relative to a given standard.
- Both figure 3 and figure 4 are splitter into 2 pages.
We will take care that in the revised version these figures will not be splitted.
- TGA/IPS are also approaches to measure the carbon concentration, while XPS can measure the Nitrogen, the author should consider the pros and cons of other characterization techniques.
We have mentioned none of the many techniques aiming at different characterization of materials, since our focus is specifically on radiocarbon, which directly quantifies the biobased carbon fraction. The fact that the elemental analysis carried out for the CO2 sample preparation also gives the C and N mass fraction is from our point of view a useful by-product, that has been reported but that is not relevant for the validation of our SCAR method.
- The author should consider the pre-treatment of the materials to exclude those potential impurities in the materials.
No pre-treatment of the materials was necessary, as these are brand-new products manufactured by the fashion industry, before being sold and worn by the end consumer. No impurities were expected and in fact none were observed.
Comments on the Quality of English Language: Understandable and readable.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed the earlier comments. The manuscript can be improved by adding the following articles:
Leather waste management scenario in developed and developing nations
Zero waste discharge in tannery industries–An achievable reality? A recent review
Biofuel from leather waste fat to lower diesel engine emissions: Valuable solution for lowering fossil fuel usage and perception on waste management
Needs attention.
