The Role of a Hazardous Waste Intermediate Management Plant in the Circularity of Products
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript aims to present a redesign plan for a hazardous waste intermediate 106 management plant, covering all management activities (both off-site and in-site). Prior to be consider to publish, I suggest authors pay more attention to 1) the structure and logic of whole manuscript, for example, the organization of the manuscript is good but can be improved further. The result and discussion seem like a brief summary with so many small paragraphs without key points. I can’t find any discussion regarding this summary. Besides, there are so many sections and paragraphs in Development and partial results which clearly need to be refined. 2) The objective of this study is quite confused and hazy. For example, authors believed that “The main objective is to contribute to the circularity of products, transforming the waste sector into a productive one, producing their own products, and the “end-of-waste” criteria”. While there is no method and target involved at all. 3) the quality of the figures, for example, there are some elements (explanation of Y-axis) missing in Figure 14. LCA report. I am quite confused about the Figure 11 and Figure 12 which has no details in the caption.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been nicely written and considers good designs. However, there are certain minor mistakes like the appropriate choice of words, reference style, and restructuring of bad sentences which need to be rectified. Here I have given a few comments. For some more comments, authors are supposed to visit the attached manuscript file.
The introduction is too long. Make it short and comprehensive. Use the appropriate choice of words.
Line 53: Redraft the sentence
Line 61-62: Redraft the sentence
Sentence “Interactions caused by every part involved in 83 a process can derive in a synergy [6]” (line no 83-84) is not clear. Kindly check it
Avoid big sentences throughout the manuscript like in lines 95-98 and 99-101
The results and discussion part should be given in this section. It seems as if it has been discussed in the materials and methods section. Kindly revisit the M&M sections and extract the parts belonging to the results and discussion section so as to make the R&D part strong.
You can make a descriptive table to give in different parts of the methodology section in that. That would be rather better rather than giving them in text format. Kindly draft a well illustrative table for your parameters taken for study in different designs/tools
Make your results and discussion more strong to support your result. Work on your justification part.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
the manuscript is quite interesting and valuable in terms of intermediate planning. while the graphical abstract needs improvements and more clarification. The figures are good but the color scheme must be define.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
I suppose this is a qualitative research. Are you collected secondary data? What are sources?
Can you provide information on how did not getting the data of all the steps in Materials an Methods? For example, case study, what questions in the questionnaires? The questionnaires can be put under Supplementary Materials.
Why VenSim PLE® is the selected software?
This is very important to check what questions to be asked to the respondents to get the answers the objective of the study.
Suggest to include more connections and discussion of your present waste management with circular economy will be of high value and concern.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors addressed all my questions. The manuscript now is better for publication.
Author Response
We thank and appreciate the valuable comments done by the reviewer because they will highly improve the content and quality of our paper. So, after revising the manuscript entitled «The role of a hazardous waste intermediate management plant in the circularity of products » according to the comments of the reviewer, we have prepared an itemized response for each of them.
