A Study on the Production Methods of Upcycling Tweed Fabric Using Clothing Waste Based on Chanel’s Tweed Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

The topic is interesting and indeed linked to a major problem in our society - the principle of circular economy in the garment industry. The theme is related to the principle of sustainability in relation to new items through the recycling of post-consumer goods, thus reducing the amount of products thrown away. Also this paper reveals the traditional method of making fabrics, used in the past, whose principles were used for the development of industrial weaving machines.

The authors have explained their research methodology and the results and conclusions support the stated theme of the paper.

I recommend to clarify the following issues:

1.to give some details about how they sort the garments, how they choose the appropriate threads for their target. What is the appropriate length of threads for the proposed methods? How do you get samples with large sizes? How did they use the samples obtained through their 4 weaving methods to design new garments or other soft goods? Some examples of new items.

2. Is it possible to evaluate how much they recycle? Is it possible to evaluate their work? It is a lot of manual work that requires a lot of time, creativity and artistic skill.

3.Table 2. This table shows images of Chanel products according to the proposed classification. Perhaps it is useful to insert the word "pictures".

4.Section 2.2. It is said "Figures 7 to 15 are diagrams of the weaving method created by the author, referring to Chanel's tweed design". When analysing the information below, I noticed that the last number of the figure is 12. 

5.The authors explain the information of figures 1-6 very well, but I think it is necessary to include some details about the images and their source.

Author Response

Author's Notes to Reviewer

First of all, I would like to thank you for your detailed reading and review of my manuscript. The manuscript has been organized according to your review. The following are my comments and correction results for your review. The blue text in the manuscript file is a modified part of the previous version.

 <Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors>

1.to give some details about how they sort the garments, how they choose the appropriate threads for their target. What is the appropriate length of threads for the proposed methods? How do you get samples with large sizes? How did they use the samples obtained through their 4 weaving methods to design new garments or other soft goods? Some examples of new items.

⇒ Author’s answer:

According to the reviewer's suggestion, the description related “the appropriate length of threads for the proposed methods” was inserted in the last part of the ‘3.2. Production of upcycling tweeds’ section.

• Inserted Sentence: (Line 297-299) Based on the weaving frame, the length of the weft yarn was required to be cut by more than 165mm and the warp yarn by more than 210mm.

In addition, I explained in more detail in the same section why the sample produced in this study was small and why it was based on a small weaving frame.

• Inserted Sentence: (Line 291-295) The reason for using small weaving frames is that the purpose of this study was not only to confirm the possibility of weaving upcycled tweed from clothing waste, but also to assume the shortest length of horizontal and vertical frames because the length of clothing waste collected in real life cannot be predictable.

The problem of application to new clothing products is closely related to the problem of fabric size. This part influenced the appropriateness (practicality) evaluation shown in the result part, and is also mentioned in the limitations of this study in the conclusion part.

In fact, this opinion was also expressed in focus group(experts) interviews. However, it is not included in the previous version. In this version, I decided to insert the opinion of the expert who pointed out the same as Reviewer 1.

 The part I reinforced is what measures can be taken to obtain large fabrics, and the reason why the fabric produced in this study was difficult to apply to new products. You can check the corrections, especially in the sentence below.

• Inserted Sentence: (Line 429-436) Second, experts' evaluation of practicality in terms of appropriateness was somewhat low. Experts wondered how the small tweed produced in this study was applied as an actual product, but answered that the results of the subsequent process were not included in this study, so the practicality could not be accurately evaluated only with tweed evaluation. Experts expected that the actual size of the manufactured tweeds was not larger than the woven frame size and that the types that can be developed into products would be only accessories, and it was proposed to increase the likelihood of making larger-sized fabrics using larger woven frames.

 

2. Is it possible to evaluate how much they recycle? Is it possible to evaluate their work? It is a lot of manual work that requires a lot of time, creativity and artistic skill.

⇒ Author’s answer:

All the clothing waste collected to produce 80 tweeds was used. The following were inserted in ‘4.1. Production of upcycling tweeds’.

• Inserted Sentence: (Line 351-353) For about a month, each student produced four tweed types; thus, 80 tweeds were ultimately produced. All the yarn prepared for weaving was exhausted through the tweed fabrication process.

This study has content to evaluate creativity centered on results, not creators. In order to examine the creator's work in an integrated manner, an analysis of the suitability of the process to be produced must be conducted, which was not applicable to the purpose of this study. I am considering this process in future research. In the conclusion on this part, the plan for future research was mentioned. In order to include this part, the unnecessary consequences in the conclusion were greatly reduced and eliminated. You can find add contents here in particular.

• Inserted Part (Sentence): (In Conclusion, Line 480-484) The weaving method attempted in this study can be used as a method of educating students who want to perform creative work on the subject of recycling. The weaving method is also easy, so it is expected to be educational for the general public. In order for this weaving method to be appropriately used for educational purposes, research topics on process development can be considered for future research.

3.Table 2. This table shows images of Chanel products according to the proposed classification. Perhaps it is useful to insert the word "pictures".

⇒ Author’s answer:

The caption in Table 2 has been changed with “Four types of Chanel's tweed reference pictures, classified according to the yarn's type, texture, and color.”

 

4.Section 2.2. It is said "Figures 7 to 15 are diagrams of the weaving method created by the author, referring to Chanel's tweed design". When analysing the information below, I noticed that the last number of the figure is 12. 

⇒ Author’s answer:

This sentence has been corrected as follows. Thank you for the detailed examination of the author's errors.

• Changed Sentence: (Line 209) “Figures 1 to 9 are diagrams of the weaving method created by the author, referring to Chanel’s tweed design.”

5.The authors explain the information of figures 1-6 very well, but I think it is necessary to include some details about the images and their source.

⇒ Author’s answer:

Two more reference papers [38,39] were added to explain the weaving notation in section ‘2.2. Tweed pattern design’.

The author explains yarn's fancy effect by type in this section. According to the reviewer's opinion, supplementary explanations were needed for readers to better understand the weaving method (image and diagram) designed in this study. So I added it as follows.

• Added part: (first paragraph in section 2.3) The purpose of this study is to manufacture fabrics that create an feeling similar to the high-quality Chanel tweed fabric using low-grade clothing waste as materials. It is important to mention that Chanel's weaving method is Chanel's own technology developed before the author's research, and it will be different from the weaving method proposed by the author.
• (Line 214-217) Type 1 is the most basic weaving method, but when using threads from post-consumer clothing waste, a fancy effect can be expected in textile design due to artificial fabric crimps, color change, and deformation. Types 2, 3, and 4 are advanced versions based on Type 1.

 

My revised paper reflected all of the reviewer's comments and went through a professional English correction service once again before final resubmission. You can check this in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Authors

The paper has been improved now and it will help the readers to understand the core value of the paper, however, the conclusion part should be shorten. 

Author Response

Author's Notes to Reviewer

First of all, I would like to thank you for your detailed reading and review of my manuscript. The manuscript has been organized according to your review. The following are my comments and correction results for your review. The blue text in the manuscript file is a modified part of the previous version.

 <Reviewer 2>

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been improved now and it will help the readers to understand the core value of the paper, however, the conclusion part should be shorten. 

⇒ Author’s answer:

The conclusion has been greatly shortened. The summary of unnecessarily repeated results has been reduced. At the same time, the limitations of this study and the contents of future studies that can be considered were inserted.

My revised paper reflected all of the reviewer's comments and went through a professional English correction service once again before final resubmission. You can check this in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

My comments for manuscript, “A study on the production methods of upcycling tweed fabric using clothing waste based on Chanel’s tweed design” are given below;

1.      The idea of upcycling of textiles is certainly appreciated work, however it does not provide scientific contributions. The authors should revise thoroughly. Firstly, the writing should be improved and too much sentences which can be omitted to make the work more understandable.

2.      Introduction part is too small and all mixed up, with a proper aim at the end of introduction section would be better.

3.      The figures quality is good and can be merged together to concise the analysis.

4.      Role of upcycling should be emphasized more, as it has been done in many other studies with similar textile products.

5.      Continuous from comment 4, literature is available, perhaps following can be added:

a.      Global consumption of flame retardants and related environmental concerns: A study on possible mechanical recycling of flame retardant textiles

b.      Propelling textile waste to ascend the ladder of sustainability: EOL study on probing environmental parity in technical textiles

c.      Life cycle assessment of flame retardant cotton textiles with optimized end-of-life phase

d.      And so on…

Author Response

Author's Notes to Reviewer

First of all, I would like to thank you for your detailed reading and review of my manuscript. The manuscript has been organized according to your review. The following are my comments and correction results for your review. The blue text in the manuscript file is a modified part of the previous version.

 <Reviewer 3>

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The idea of upcycling of textiles is certainly appreciated work, however it does not provide scientific contributions. The authors should revise thoroughly. Firstly, the writing should be improved and too much sentences which can be omitted to make the work more understandable.

⇒Author’s answer:

Accepting the reviewer's opinion, I found that the paper needed a more detailed explanation of why the author conducted research to evaluate creativity and went through a qualitative evaluation process for the results.

Overall, many modifications and additional explanations were inserted into the research method, results, and discussion section. That part can be confirmed by the changed part (blue) of the entire manuscript.

 

2. Introduction part is too small and all mixed up, with a proper aim at the end of introduction section would be better.

⇒Author’s answer:

I divided the details of the introduction into sections. The reason for this division was that it was necessary to separate and write additional contents by reflecting the reviewer's comments 2 and 4.

• 1.1. Concerns about the Sustainability of Textile Waste
• 1.2. Research Objectives and Research Process

In the first part, the occurrence situation of clothing waste, problems to be solved in relation to it, and research concerns in the academic world were written. In the second part, the specific research objectives and research process were written from the background of why this researcher started this study. It is expected that the reviewer's point of view has been resolved due to the section division and modification of the introduction.

 

3. The figures quality is good and can be merged together to concise the analysis.

⇒Author’s answer:

In Table 2, unnecessary pictures were removed so that they could be connected to Figures 1-9, and only 2-3 reference figures could appear for each type in Table 2. Figure 1-9 also modified the fabric weave to be more clearly visible. Please check the revised manuscript.

 

4. Role of upcycling should be emphasized more, as it has been done in many other studies with similar textile products.

⇒Author’s answer:

Additional content was created by inserting a paragraph for the upcycling part, particularly the textile part (the treatment and environmental nature of technical fibers and flame-retardant fibers mentioned in the comment 5 below). Due to this part, it is expected that the content flow for the context before and after was continued.

• Added part in Introduction: (Line 34-43) Most clothing waste~ 'end-of-life' strategies

5. Continuous from comment 4, literature is available, perhaps following can be added:

• Global consumption of flame retardants and related environmental concerns: A study on possible mechanical recycling of flame retardant textiles
• Propelling textile waste to ascend the ladder of sustainability: EOL study on probing environmental parity in technical textiles
• Life cycle assessment of flame retardant cotton textiles with optimized end-of-life phase
• And so on…

⇒Author’s answer: I looked at the suggested references and judged that they could be referenced in my paper, so new references were added.

<List of references added and inserted> Reference No. 2-8

• Kasavan, S.; Yusoff, S.; Guan, N.; Zaman, N.; Fakri, M. Global trends of textile waste research from 2005 to 2020 using bibliometric analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2021, 28, 44780-44794.
• Harmsen, P.; Scheffer, M.; Bos, H. Textiles for circular fashion: The logic behind recycling options. Sustainability 2021, 13(17), 9714.
• Keßler, L.; Matlin, S.; Kümmerer, K. The contribution of material circularity to sustainability—Recycling and reuse of textiles. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry 2021, 32, 100535.
• Dissanayake, D. G. K., & Weerasinghe, D. U. (2021). Fabric waste recycling: A systematic review of methods, applications, and challenges. Materials Circular Economy 2021, 3, 1-20.
• Yasin, S.; Behary, N.; Curti, M.; Rovero, G. Global consumption of flame retardants and related environmental concerns: A study on possible mechanical recycling of flame retardant textiles. Fibers 2016, 4(2), 16.
• Yasin, S.; Sun, D. Propelling textile waste to ascend the ladder of sustainability: EOL study on probing environmental parity in technical textiles. Journal of Cleaner Production 2019, 233, 1451-1464.
• Yasin, S.; Behary, N.; Perwuelz, A.; Guan, J. Life cycle assessment of flame retardant cotton textiles with optimized end-of-life phase. Journal of Cleaner Production 2018, 172, 1080-1088.

 

My revised paper reflected all of the reviewer's comments and went through a professional English correction service once again before final resubmission. You can check this in the attatched file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

No comments to add.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author improved the presentation based on the last review and the stucture is more complete. However, here are still some questions. The main problem is the that the design of this study is  relative simple from the perspective of a research. Besides, since the novelty is the main feature of the new designed tweeds, the evaluation is very important. The author indicated that five experts were invoved in the evaluation team. How do you make sure the number is enough and the results are validated?

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper may be interesting to the readers of MDPI Sustainability, where the author presented production methods of tweed fabric upcycling using waste clothing, and one uniqueness comes from application of Chanel’s tweed design. Unfortunately, the presented manuscript was yet to convince me that the paper is ready for a publication due to inadequate academic soundness of research design.

 

As far as I understood, the study had students produce several new tweed fabrics using yarns from clothing waste, and had 5 experts evaluate the tweed based on “creativity” and “appropriateness”. The method of tweed production was well explained, but it was unclear whether the evaluation procedure was relevant. Firstly, the goal of evaluation was unclear, and therefore I was unable to understand why creativity factors needed to be evaluated. Also, the selection of “novelty” and “appropriateness” as creativity factors were not explained clearly. For instance, whether the tweed was “successfully sustainable and presented uncycling implications” is not understandable. Additionally, the background of the 5 experts that evaluated the tweed fabrics were not explained. Are they from industry or academics? What kind of positions have they been in their institution? Are they all from South Korea? What kind of participant bias may be expected? Moreover, despite the small sample size, the study presented results based on quantitative analysis. With only 5 samples, statistical analysis is much less powerful, and the research should have considered qualitative analysis.

 

Also, the paper fails to explain several key terms of the paper. “Upcycling” has multiple definitions; thus, it should be defines clearly for the context of this paper. “creative” is also an ambiguous word, which should be defined.