An Optimization Model for the Design of a Sustainable Municipal Solid Waste Management System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Good introduction, MSW well defined. Theoretical part described well, mathematical equations seem right to me. 

Part 3 should be shortened.

Results and discussions are OK, 

 

Figures and tables not properly cited. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting paper which introduced an optimization model for the design of a sustainable municipal solid waste management system. There are some suggestions as follows:

1. The authours should further check their wording and grammar. For example, "systems" in the title should be "system".
2. Waste sorting is important in MSW management. I think the authors should give more clarifications on waste sorting.
3. "2.1" has been used twice in the manuscript.
4. There are many tables and figures in section 4; however, the explanitions on them are insufficient. It is suggested that the authors should give more insightful discussions on the derived results by comparing with other existing studies.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript developed a mathematical model for SWMS, which is an interesting work.

1. Abstract-the abstract is too long and heavily describes the background, two third of the abstract is talking about the background. It should be improved by focusing on the model.
2. Keywords-there are too many keywords, 5-7 is enough. In addition, some keywords are too long.
3. The introduction is well prepared, however, some sentences are too long which need improvement. I suggest to delete the last paragraph of the introduction.
4. The language of the whole manuscript should be polished by a native English speaker.
5. Modeling Methodology is too long, there are too many abbreviations and formulas if it is possible to move part to supplementary materials?
6. The result and discussion is the most important part for a paper, however, the author just give a very simple results and discussion in the present study. it needs more analysis and comparison with previous study.
7. The conclusion is too long.
8. The form of the reference is too messy, which need check according to the form of the journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Good introduction, all necessary terms, bresearch background is well defined and supported by appropriate literature research. Theoretical part ha also improved.

Same with discussion ald last part of the article.

Figures and tables not cited in a proper manner please check infosheet. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

My comments have been addressed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The author well answered my question.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf