-->PONE-D-25-48765-->-->A Sustainable Yarn Tension Control Technique for Optimizing Textile Dyeing Efficiency and Water Use-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Amer,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 01 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Maria H Ribeiro, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

4. Please ensure that you refer to Figures 4 and 11 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figures.

5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: Overall

According to the journal guidelines (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-manuscript-organization), the manuscript organization should be:

Title page: List title, authors, and affiliations as first page of the manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Middle section

The following elements can be renamed as needed and presented in any order:

Materials and Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions (optional)

Ending section

Acknowledgments

References

Supporting information captions (if applicable)

The manuscript is not organized according to this set of guidelines, this must be adressed

The authors should summarize the state of the art and highlight the relevance of the work submitted in the Introduction section. In the present form it is too broad, and not fully focused, e.g., the authors digress too much on general matters related to cleaner production, the introduction should be more focused

Some statistical treatment of the data is strongly advised, to highlight if the observed differences are statistically meaningful, e.g., for data in Table 2, how many replicates were performed, what was the standard deviation of the water use, and variation in dyeing uniformity?

The authors refer and present data (Table 3) of a life cycle analysis (LCA), but they do not present detailed information in materials and methods, e.g., scope, system boundaries, inventory data used, software used, uncertainty and sensitivity, which ISO guidelines were followed

Minor glitches: “Furthermore, water Demand” should be “Furthermore, water demand”

Mind that reference 14 is the pdf version of a powerpoint presentation prepared by the Institute of Environmental Engineering, Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania and sponsored by the Sponsored by UNEP, Division of Technology, Industry, and Economics, with the title: INTRODUCTION TO CLEANER PRODUCTION (CP) CONCEPTS AND PRACTICE. The authors should consider using as reference a peer-reviewed paper focused also on cleaner production goals, strategies and implementation, e.g., DOI: 10.1002/csr.2693, https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032161, …

Reviewer #2: 1. The authors’ claim of achieving 65–70% water savings and approximately 20% energy reduction during dyeing appears to rely primarily on manufacturer-reported liquor ratios rather than controlled experimental measurements, which undermines the validity of the conclusion.

2. The sections discussing environmental impact and wastewater characteristics are well referenced; however, they are not clearly connected to yarn tension control, resulting in a diluted and unfocused contribution.

3. The materials and methods section requires clearer and more systematic description to ensure reproducibility and transparency.

4. The authors are strongly encouraged to provide directly measured water and energy consumption data, rather than inferring savings solely from liquor ratio values.

5. It must be clarified whether dyeing recipes, dye classes, batch sizes, and machine types were held constant across all experiments, as these variables can significantly influence the results.

6. The manuscript should report the number of dyeing batches tested, along with variance measures and statistical significance to support the reliability of the findings.

7. The IPI analysis appears to be based on only three trials per yarn count, yet no confidence intervals or statistical tests are provided to evaluate consistency or uncertainty.

8. Although the authors suggest broad industrial applicability, the study was conducted solely on Egyptian cotton (Giza 86) within a single manufacturing facility, limiting the generalizability of the conclusions.

9. The manuscript frequently blends prior literature, factory-reported data, and experimentally measured results without clear distinction, which affects objectivity and makes it difficult to assess the source and reliability of specific claims.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

A Sustainable Yarn Tension Control Technique for Optimizing Textile Dyeing Efficiency and Water Use

PONE-D-25-48765R1

Dear Dr. Motaz Amer,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Maria H Ribeiro, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #2: No

**********