Structural Equation Model of Factors Influencing the Selection of Industrial Waste Disposal Service in Cement Kilns

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors presented a well-elaborated paper. It is carefully prepared, well-structured, the methodology, results, and conclusions are adequately demonstrated. However, I could not find clearly stated limitations to the conducted research and recommendations for future research. It would be advisable to include them in the paper. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting article. After reading this study, I realized that it is a significant study for investigating the business factors which relate to the intention to use Co-Processing waste disposal service in cement kilns. Thus, the subject addressed in this paper is relevant. The discussion of this problem is necessary to find out the relationship of business factors based on questionnaires from 1251 customers. The survey data were analyzed by the structural equation modeling which has been well identified, presented, and discussed. In the introduction, the paper mentioned the previous researches on Co-Processing industrial waste disposal in cement kilns and indicated the purpose of the study of the relationship between the factors and the intention to use Co-Processing industrial waste disposal in cement kilns service via the structural equation modeling. In the literature review, the concept and evidence of the main subject and main factors were explained adequately and particularly. In the Method, the source of data and survey data were summarized and the parameters for each measurement of criteria were described. The paper gave the hypothesis between factors, then identified the relationship, the final results found out the support and not support for each hypothesis.

However, there are errors that require revisions to improve the quality of the paper, as follows:

1. The research of (line 74). What kind of research is here?
2. The first group studied renewable technology acceptance, such as renewable technology acceptance, such as? renewable technology acceptance, such as? (line 103 to line 104). Not only cite the reference, but you must also write down the detail of factors.
3. Line 387 to line 392, what’s the equation? Where should it be put? Could these lines move to the method part after the table of model fit?
4. Line 396 to line 399, Could these lines move to the method part after the table of model fit?
5. The references haven’t been correct. Check and revise all references accordingly.
6. The English language quality of this paper is globally appropriate and acceptable; however, some minor revisions, comma, and spell checks are necessary.

 

Thanks & best regards,

 

Dr. Thi Kim Lien Nguyen

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1648812

Article

Structural equation model of factors influencing the selection of industrial waste disposal service in cement kilns

Authors

Ukrit Suksanguan , Somsak Siwadamrongpong , Thanapong Champahom , Sajjakaj Jomnonkwao , Tassana Boonyoo , Vatanavongs Ratanavaraha *

Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability

Special Issue

Strategies toward a Green Deal and Circular Economy

 

Abstract:

The paper needs English grammar corrections.

The use of industrial wastes "as renewable fuels". This statement is not correct. 

Not all industrial wastes could be burned.

 

Introduction:

There have been various methods of industrial waste disposal, such as industrial wastes [1, 2], sewage sludge [3-5], hazardous waste [6, 7], Concurrently, there are studies on reducing industrial waste generation with the principle of Waste Management Hierarchy [8-11].

References:

1. Bogush, A.A., et al., Co-processing of raw and washed air pollution control residues from energy-from-waste facilities in the 638 cement kiln. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020. 254: p. 119924. 639

2. Viczek, S.A., et al., Determination of the material-recyclable share of SRF during co-processing in the cement industry. 640 Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2020. 156. 641

3. Lv, D., et al., Effects of co-processing sewage sludge in cement kiln on NOx, NH3 and PAHs emissions. Chemosphere, 2016. 642 159: p. 595-601. 643

4. Yang, Z., et al., Investigation of formation mechanism of particulate matter in a laboratory-scale simulated cement kiln co- 644 processing municipal sewage sludge. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019. 234: p. 822-831. 645

5. Da, Y., et al., Potential of preparing cement clinker by adding the fluorine-containing sludge into raw meal. Journal of 646 Hazardous Materials, 2021. 403: p. 123692. 

 

The authors must list all the authors of the papers. Besides, at the end of sentences, the authors must use dots.

 

2. Literature Review

 

Many approaches exist to determine the importance of customers' attitudes in multi-alternative technology selection. For example, [Karabasevic, D., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Stanujkic, D. (2016). The framework for the selection of personnel based on the SWARA and ARAS methods under uncertainties. Informatica, 27(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2016.76; Yazdani, M., Wen, Z., Liao, H., Banaitis, A., & Turskis, Z. (2019). A grey combined compromise solution (CoCoSo-G) method for supplier selection in construction management. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 25(8), 858–874. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2019.11309], 

2.1 Theoretical Framework

 

It started from the literature review and divided its results into three main conceptual framework groups. The first group studied renewable technology acceptance, such as [29, 31-36] , the second group studied waste management such as [11, 23, 37-44] and the third group studied the disposal energy [45- 47].

The authors there cited 20 sources in one sentence. Such practice is not allowable in scientific research. The best case is when the authors cite no more than one reference in one sentence. In any case, they should not quote more than three references in one sentence.

 

First, not all wastes can be burned. Secondly, the customers always think about burning places and the distance from these places [Peldschus, F., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Tamosaitiene, J. (2010). Sustainable assessment of construction site by applying game theory. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 21(3), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1.1.463.6104; Turskis, Z., Lazauskas, M., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2012). Fuzzy multiple criteria assessment of construction site alternatives for non-hazardous waste incineration plant in Vilnius city, applying ARAS-F and AHP methods. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 20(2), 110–120. https://doi.org/10.3846/16486897.2011.645827].

Conclusions should be more straightforward and shorter.

 

Figure 1. A research hypothesis model. The quality of this picture must be better (use bigger font).

 

Where K denotes the number, σ_x^2 represents the mean of the variance of the questions, and, σ_yi^2, shows the mean of the covariance of the questions.

The authors must use the same font and style in equations and the text.

 

Figure 2. Result from structure equation model.

The authors must use the same font and style in equations and in the figure.

 

The authors provide a reference list of 113 sources. Usually, the number of references must be less than one hundred (of course, if it is not a review paper).

 

Besides, the author must provide all needed information about references. For example, in reference [Simanjuntak, M., U. Sumarwan, and A.D. Situmorang, The effect of marketing mix and brand image on customer loyalty of remixed mortar. Independent Journal of Management & Production, 2020. 11(2) ] the authors omitted some information.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx