Analysis of the Synergies of Cutting Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in an Integrated Iron and Steel Enterprise in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The problem of the impact of metallurgical processes on air pollution and its synergy with greenhouse gas emissions is characteristic of industrialized countries. As such, the article is socially and scientifically important. The work presents a reliable description of the state of affairs in China. The description of emission reduction scenarios is also interesting.I believe that the article is methodologically correct, although it lacks a more advanced statistical apparatus.Nevertheless, the obtained results are interesting and worth applying.In conclusion, I evaluate the article positively and suggest that it be sent for further processing.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your high efficiency in reviewing our manuscript entitled “Analysis of the synergies of cutting air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions in an integrated iron and steel enterprise in China”. We greatly appreciate your thoughtful feedback and valuable insights. Your recognition of the social and scientific importance of our article is encouraging and motivates us to further refine our research. Your suggestion aligns with our own considerations for refinement, and we will certainly explore avenues to incorporate more sophisticated statistical analyses into our work to strengthen its methodological foundation. Once again, thank you for your insightful review. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further suggestions or queries.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Report Review on the paper

Analysis of the synergies of cutting air pollutant and green-house gas emissions in an integrated iron and steel enterprise in China

This paper examines the synergistic effect between the environmental impacts (EI) of air pollutants and GHGs under different scenarios using life cycle assessment (LCA). LCA methodology is considered a fundamental tool for assessing environmental impacts and communicating objective and verifiable data on the environmental performance of a product, process or service.

The paper should be improved. Below some remarks.

1.      The literature review could be improved by adding recent references. For example:

·        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106939

·        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2023.04.027

·        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.04.001

2.      some references should be reviewed. For instance; Kuramochi and Xuan believed that the use of purchased steel scrap can simultaneously reduce CO2, SO2 and PM generated by the ISI (Kuramochi, 2016) (Xuan and Yue, 2017).

3.      Sensitivity analysis allow us to understand the impact of our assumptions in technical and environmental models. This is crucial to ensure reliable and accurate decision making. In defining the sensitivity analysis, the authors decline the use or emissions of the six key factors by 5%, the LCA is conducted again, and the results are standardized and weighted average. The choice of different factors may induce a significant degree of variability in the LCA results. Further explanations are required.

4.      The analyze of policy implications is very limited. Policy recommendations/ suggestions are the major focus of all researchers and policymakers. It would be interesting to expand the recommendations with more specific recommendations consistent with their findings.

5.      The results should be compared to the existing literature on the subject.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

acceptable

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research uses the life cycle assessment method to evaluate different scenarios for air pollution reduction.

In terms of putting the research into context, I strongly recommend newer references when discussing the top GHG emission producers (the first phrase describing the first three GHG emitters is based on a 2009 study).  

The readers need to understand and follow the study quickly. Hence, I recommend including a short statement on the manuscript's structure (usually at the end of the introduction).

The authors use the IMRaD styling. However, the literature coverage is insufficient. I strongly recommend extending the previous literature coverage and critically discussing the main findings of this research in opposition to or sustaining it to prior studies.

Please extend the policy recommendations based on the results of the research. An assessment of different scenarios in this study should allow an extensive discussion of various policy options for decision-makers.

 

The reference list is insufficient. As previously suggested, the authors should include other relevant studies too. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Broadly, I am satisfied with the current version.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors incorporated the reviewer's suggestions and comments adequately. The manuscript is suitable for publication.