Analysis of the Drapeability and Bending Rigidity of Clothing Packages—A Preliminary Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Stępień et al. compared the drape coefficient and bending rigidity of cotton fabrics combined with recycled polyester adhesive inserts across three types of seam preparation, focusing on differences according to the preparation order. They produced clothing packages using three different types of adhesive inserts and found that as the mass and thickness of the package increased, bending rigidity tended to increase while the drape coefficient decreased. Samples glued before sewing generally showed higher rigidity and drape performance than those sewn before bonding. This study highlights how the selection of bonding and sewing techniques impacts rigidity and drape when using eco-friendly materials in garment production.

However, the paper has several issues in its introduction and data presentation, which hinder readers’ understanding. The following improvements are suggested:

1. The Introduction fails to clearly link the cited results to the authors’ work. It is difficult to discern the motivation and objectives of the study. The authors should clearly state how previous findings relate to their research and clarify the motivation and purpose of their study.
2. Most of the results presented are statistical. The authors must specify how many samples were measured to calculate the averages.
3. Figure 11 does not match the description in the main text.
4. If the authors intend to present both drape coefficient and bending rigidity in a single graph, they should use dual Y-axes. Simply labeling the X-axis with measured values does not help readers identify data trends and makes the paper more difficult to understand.
5. The Discussion section is overly summarizing rather than analytical. It should address the following questions:
• Why does bonding before sewing lead to an increase in bending rigidity?
• Why does bonding before sewing lead to a decrease in drape coefficient?
• Why does the use of more complex seam types increase bending rigidity but have less effect on the drape coefficient?

Author Response

Comment 1.

The Introduction fails to clearly link the cited results to the authors’ work. It is difficult to discern the motivation and objectives of the study. The authors should clearly state how previous findings relate to their research and clarify the motivation and purpose of their study.

Reply 1. 

Dear Reviewer, I would like to explain that in the paper there are given reference to previous paper of Authors [21] and references to works of coauthor (Frydrych) [3, 10, 15, 16, 19] telling about their experience in such measurements. Additionally, the Introduction is expanded to another papers. At the end of introduction the new fragment of text was added to explain the motivation and purpose of the study. There is no information about invetstigation of clothing packages with seams. All the changes are in red. The title was also changed.

Comment 2.

Most of the results presented are statistical. The authors must specify how many samples were measured to calculate the averages.

Reply 2.

Thank you for your comment. You are right. It was added to the text of method description (in red).

Comment 3.

Figure 11 does not match the description in the main text.

Reply 3.

You are right, the figure is changed. It was our fault. Sorry about that.

Comment 4.

If the authors intend to present both drape coefficient and bending rigidity in a single graph, they should use dual Y-axes. Simply labeling the X-axis with measured values does not help readers identify data trends and makes the paper more difficult to understand. 

Reply 4.

You are right, we take your comment into consideration during preparing the next paper. This time it was too short time for us (the Easter time, which we celebrate in Poland) and we don't have an appropriate tool.

Comment 5. 

1. The Discussion section is overly summarizing rather than analytical. It should address the following questions:
• Why does bonding before sewing lead to an increase in bending rigidity?
• Why does bonding before sewing lead to a decrease in drape coefficient?
• Why does the use of more complex seam types increase bending rigidity but have less effect on the drape coefficient?
•  
• Reply 5

• Because, if we sew more layers the package became stiffer.
• If the fabric package is stiffer, creates less and shallow folds and drape is worsening.

• As was said above more complex means more layers, more layers creates stiffer package. If the package is stiff enough the differences in depth of folds are less visible.

• All of this is now in the text (in red).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The term "ecological" in the title is not sufficiently justified. The study focuses on adhesive inserts made from recycled polyester but lacks data on environmental impact (e.g., carbon footprint, biodegradability). Either revise the title to remove "ecological" or include a dedicated analysis of sustainability aspects.
• The introduction cites older studies (e.g., Peirce, 1930) but omits recent advancements in eco-friendly adhesives or circular economy practices in textiles (post-2020). Update references to reflect current trends in sustainable garment manufacturing.
• The seam preparation process (e.g., stitch density, tension) and bonding technology parameters (temperature, pressure, duration) are inadequately described. Provide precise details to ensure reproducibility.
• No statistical tests (e.g., ANOVA, t-tests) are mentioned to validate significance of observed differences in drape coefficient or bending rigidity. Include statistical analysis to strengthen conclusions.
• CE 1016 exhibits anomalous behavior (e.g., lower drape coefficient despite higher mass). The discussion attributes this to "different raw material," but no material characterization (e.g., fiber composition, adhesive distribution) is provided. Expand on this with supporting data.
• The study tests only cotton fabric and three adhesive inserts. Acknowledge limitations regarding generalization to other fabrics (e.g., synthetics, blends) or adhesive types.
• Figures 6–17 lack error bars, making it impossible to assess data variability. Tables 1–3 should include units in headers (e.g., "Breaking force [N]") for clarity.
• Conclusions state that "more complex seams increase bending rigidity" but do not quantify "complexity." Define seam complexity (e.g., layer count, stitch type) and link it directly to results.
• The paper repetition rate is too high, which is 22 percent, and it is recommended to reduce it.
• Minor grammatical errors exist (e.g., "garment’s appearance" missing apostrophe). Adhere to journal formatting guidelines (e.g., reference style inconsistencies, figure captions not fully self-explanatory).

 

 

Author Response

Comments 1. 

The term "ecological" in the title is not sufficiently justified. The study focuses on adhesive inserts made from recycled polyester but lacks data on environmental impact (e.g., carbon footprint, biodegradability). Either revise the title to remove "ecological" or include a dedicated analysis of sustainability aspects.

Reply 1.

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for pointing it out. The title was changed, the ecological aspect was removed. More important in this case seems for us the technological aspect of paper.

Comments 2.

The introduction cites older studies (e.g., Peirce, 1930) but omits recent advancements in eco-friendly adhesives or circular economy practices in textiles (post-2020). Update references to reflect current trends in sustainable garment manufacturing.

Reply 2.

Dear Reviewer, We resigned from the ecological aspect of paper and focus only on the measurements according to two bonding technologies. Therefore, we decided not to add any papers concerning the circular economy and ecological trends. The old Peirce's paper is the backgroud for the bending rigidity measurement, that was the reason it was mentioned.

Comments 3.

The seam preparation process (e.g., stitch density, tension) and bonding technology parameters (temperature, pressure, duration) are inadequately described. Provide precise details to ensure reproducibility.

Reply 3.

The stich pitch was in the text, but the bonding technological parameters are added (in red). Thank you for this comment.

Comments 4.

No statistical tests (e.g., ANOVA, t-tests) are mentioned to validate significance of observed differences in drape coefficient or bending rigidity. Include statistical analysis to strengthen conclusions.

Reply 4.

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for that comment. T-test results are included in the corrected paper.

Comments 5.

CE 1016 exhibits anomalous behavior (e.g., lower drape coefficient despite higher mass). The discussion attributes this to "different raw material," but no material characterization (e.g., fiber composition, adhesive distribution) is provided. Expand on this with supporting data.

Reply 5.

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to explain that we can not get those data, we have only parameters, which were measured by us (given in Table 2). According to the adhesive insert supplier the three adhesive inserts should be made of the same recycled polyester, but after measurement of their mechanical properties, it occured that one of them is quite different (i.e., it has a different breaking force and elongation). We can  not got more information about it, because this suplier doesn't exist any more. The number of adhesive points is given CP=37, and they are randomly distributed, what you can find in the text.

Comments 6.

The study tests only cotton fabric and three adhesive inserts. Acknowledge limitations regarding generalization to other fabrics (e.g., synthetics, blends) or adhesive types.

Reply 6.

Thank you for your valuable comment. Information about this is added in conclusions (in red).

Comments 7.

Figures 6–17 lack error bars, making it impossible to assess data variability. Tables 1–3 should include units in headers (e.g., "Breaking force [N]") for clarity.

Reply 7.

Sorry, but it is not true. In all the mentioned figures the standard deviation values are marked. Also the units in Tables were given.

Comments 8.

Conclusions state that "more complex seams increase bending rigidity" but do not quantify "complexity." Define seam complexity (e.g., layer count, stitch type) and link it directly to results.

Reply 8.

Thank you for your comment. It was changed in the text according to your suggestions.

Comments 9.

The paper repetition rate is too high, which is 22 percent, and it is recommended to reduce it.

Reply 9.

Ok, we tried to reduce it.

Comments 10.

Minor grammatical errors exist (e.g., "garment’s appearance" missing apostrophe). Adhere to journal formatting guidelines (e.g., reference style inconsistencies, figure captions not fully self-explanatory).

Reply 10.

Ok, we tried to correct them.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.    At end of the introduction section, the authors should clarify the exact research question or hypothesis. Right now, saying the goal is to compare mechanical parameters like bending stiffness and drapability sounds a bit too general.
2.    The authors should specify the number of samples tested and the number of repeated measurements for each test. 
3.    The authors should explain why comparing the two process orders (bonding then sewing vs. sewing then bonding) makes sense. Some background or references would help support why this order might affect bending stiffness or drapability.
4.    The conclusion should go beyond summarizing findings and briefly highlight the practical value and potential applications of the study in textile or garment engineering. This will better reflect the significance of the work.
5.    The current Discussion section reads more like an extension of the Results. It should include a concise summary of key findings, clearly state the novelty and main contributions, acknowledge the study's limitations, and suggest possible directions for future research.

Author Response

Comments 1.

At end of the introduction section, the authors should clarify the exact research question or hypothesis. Right now, saying the goal is to compare mechanical parameters like bending stiffness and drapability sounds a bit too general.

Reply 1.

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your comment. At the end of Introcuction the text is added explaining the goal (in red). 

Comments 2.

The authors should specify the number of samples tested and the number of repeated measurements for each test. 

Reply 2.

Thank you very much for your comment. It is added in the measurement method description (in red).

Comments 3.

The authors should explain why comparing the two process orders (bonding then sewing vs. sewing then bonding) makes sense. Some background or references would help support why this order might affect bending stiffness or drapability.

Reply 3.

At the end of Introduction, in the subchapter 2.2.1 as well as in the conclusions you can find some explanations (in red), why there are two technologies in experiment are added.

Comments 4.

The conclusion should go beyond summarizing findings and briefly highlight the practical value and potential applications of the study in textile or garment engineering. This will better reflect the significance of the work.

Reply 4.

At the end of conclusions the appropriate text is added according to your suggestions (in red).

Comments 5.

The current Discussion section reads more like an extension of the Results. It should include a concise summary of key findings, clearly state the novelty and main contributions, acknowledge the study's limitations, and suggest possible directions for future research.

Reply 5.

The text of discussion chapter was totally changed.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision of the previous comment seems to have been appropriately addressed. However, the title remains unclear and needs further modification. The title of a paper should clearly indicate the content it addresses. The term "chosen properties" is not specific at all, and therefore, it should not be used in the title. The author should specify which properties are being referred to in the title.

Author Response

Comments 1.

The revision of the previous comment seems to have been appropriately addressed. However, the title remains unclear and needs further modification. The title of a paper should clearly indicate the content it addresses. The term "chosen properties" is not specific at all, and therefore, it should not be used in the title. The author should specify which properties are being referred to in the title.

Reply 1.

Dear Reviewer,

According to your suggestions we change the title as follows "Analysis of drapeability and bending rigidity of clothing packages - a preliminary study" .

Thank you for approval of our changes in manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript textiles-3580508 has been sufficiently improved, which warrants its publication in Textiles.

Author Response

Comments 1.

The manuscript textiles-3580508 has been sufficiently improved, which warrants its publication in Textiles.

Reply 1.

Dear Reviewer,

Presentation of results, discussion and conclusions were slightly changed as you suggested. All the changes are this time in green.

Thank you for approval of our improved version of manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my concerns. I have no further comments.

Author Response

Comments 1.

The authors have addressed all my concerns. I have no further comments.

Reply 1.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for approval of our improved version of manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx