Circular Economy in the Textile Industry: A Review of Technology, Practice, and Opportunity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed review "Circular economy in the textile industry: a review of technology, practice, and opportunity" submitted by Kyle Parnell, Abigail Rolston, Brian Hilton, Allen Luccitti review different technologies to recycle textile waste and then establishes a qualitative framework for material value retention and waste avoidance potential with which to evaluate their efficacy.

This is a very in-depth review that deals with technical aspects, but also gives a picture of the real situation in textile reuse and recycling problem and the most real and practicable solutions.

The review may be published after minor revision.

In particular:

Lines 45-46: “polyacrylonitrile (PAN) acrylic,” Why this polymer is cited twice?

Line 49: “1” typing error.

Line 100: 7 19] typing error

Line 257: “glucose monomers”, lines 269-270 “By skipping the complete depolymerization and repolymerization steps” and line 846 “other than the lyocell rayon method “ in the viscose process the cellulose is not depolymerized to monomers, but to polymers with polymerization degree 300-600.

Line 357: “living organic enzymes” why living?

Line 559: “44” typing error

Author Response

Thank you for kindly taking the time to review this manuscript. Your comments are helpful in improving both the technical accuracy of the review and the mechanical quality of the text. Please find detailed responses to each point raised in the attached PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I enjoyed reading your paper. It is well organized, and topic is very critical. I have some minor recommendation to improve overall quality of this already well crafted manuscript. I hope this will help you a bit in the process of publication. 

1. I am aware that this is a qualitative review paper in its nature, but I would encourage you to reflect on methodological limitations in the last section (recommendation and future work). Although you do have a section where you discuss limitation in chemical recycling, in the very last section you might want to reflect on limitations inherent to selected method.
2. I did find here and there couple of errors that should be corrected before publishing this work (for example, page 3 line 100, add parenthesis). 
3. I did check carefully your appendix, but would like to clarify when you present import and export data do you refer to raw materials and this data exclude deadstock fibers? I think this amounts must be higher as US is biggest clothing consumer and deadstock exporter in the world. In that regard your paper needs clarification what do you refer under "textile category" and what do you leave outside of the study scope. The term itself is too broad and there are so many subcategories. You may add to limitations that you only consider "X category" when discussing textiles in the paper. 

Thank you very much and I wish you good luck

Author Response

Thank you for kindly taking the time to review this manuscript. Your comments are helpful in improving both the technical accuracy of the review and the mechanical quality of the text. Please find detailed responses to each point raised in the attached PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf