Analysing the Sustainability of the Production of Solid Recovered Fuel from Screening Waste

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the present manuscript, the authors focus on the novel approach of "recovering fuel from screening waste," where "screening" pertains to a section of wastewater treatment. The global uniformity of wastewater treatment technologies is well understood, yet the authors uniquely concentrate on "solid recovered fuel." This perspective is innovative and could provide significant insights for future governmental management of Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs).    

I appreciate the substantial effort the authors have invested in their calculations. As a researcher engaged in the economic analysis of wastewater treatment technologies, I recognize the complexity of such detailed computation. The meticulous nature of their work could indeed lay a foundation for future studies in this field.  

The quality and innovation demonstrated in this paper make it suitable for publication in a journal with an impact factor ranging from 3 to 6. While other reviewers might raise concerns or find issues with the calculations, I believe the methodology employed by the authors is robust and well-reasoned. It's worth noting that different perspectives may lead to varying interpretations of the algorithms, but from my standpoint, the approach taken is both viable and sound.  

I recommend a minor revision to enhance the visibility of this paper. The authors may consider including additional keywords that accurately reflect the core themes of their research. This would enable more readers to access and benefit from the insights and advances presented in this work.

 

Author Response

I wish to extend my sincere gratitude for your valuable time and effort in reviewing our article. Your comments and suggestions have been very valuable in enhancing the quality of our work.

In order to improve the manuscript and comply with their proposals, new keywords have been included: Monte Carlo simulation; CO₂ emission; and Wastewater.

Best regards,

Jaime Martín Pascual.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors conducted on wastewater management has towards a circular model that prioritizes energy generation and waste reduction. by producing solid recovered fuel (SRF) from waste screening. Their assessment on economic and environmental viability was performed through a multi-scenario analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. They considered initial investments, operation and maintenance expenses as costs, and potential sales of the SRF produced as benefits. Waste drying costs were the most significant, with thermal drying being more financially advantageous than solar drying. Their results showed that the currently practiced landfill disposal is not feasible, particularly compared to the other SRF production scenarios.

Generally, it is a valuable study, it could be proper to be published through minor structural revisions.

 In Summary:

1.      The manuscript’s English text should be polished. The text seems to be confusing in some sections.

2.      The Abstract shall be rewritten. Concentrate on your study outcome other than literature review!

3.      it is recommended to use more relevant keywords.

4.      Connect the previous paragraph with the new section with a suitable sentence in the Introduction section. (Lines 37 and 58)

5.      Declare the novelty of your study in the last paragraph of the Introduction section. Your study novelty is missed both in the abstract and the introduction section. Your writing is such that despite the simulations you have conducted, you have failed to emphasize your new or outstanding achievements.

6.      it is recommended to provide an Abbreviation list to remove ambiguity.

7.      The subsection “2.1 Description of scenarios” shall include the description! You have just provide the proposed scenarios in figure-1, do not hesitate to provide more detailed description bout all scenarios.

8.      Re-check references and cross-references templates according to MDPI Journals.

9.      it is recommended to provide  an Abbreviation list to remove ambiguity.

10. All figures and images should be rearranged and redrawn to promote the quality of the demonstration of the results.

11. Rearrange and improve all Tables!

12. All equations shall be provided in the MDPI template.

13. Instantly add an explanation about Environmental Analysis right after this subsection. Let the readers know what you want to do before entering other subsections (3.2.1. CO2 emission, ...). (Line 351)

14.  The Results section shall provide appropriate  discussions. Therefore this section is necessary to be literally polished to demonstrate the significance of the generated results.

15. Honestly, I cannot make sense directly of your conclusion! Do you have a suggestion for future studies? What study limitations have you faced?

This paper could be significantly improved through a minor revision process.

Moderate editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

I wish to extend my sincere gratitude for your valuable time and effort in reviewing our article. Your comments and suggestions have been very valuable in enhancing the quality of our work.

In order to improve the manuscript and respond to your requests, in the attached file are the changes made based on your proposals.

Best regards,

Jaime Martín Pascual.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper reviewed an economic and environmental feasibility study of implementing SRF production. This paper is fundamentally based on the literature review and authors analyzed those data sets to evaluate SRF production. The analytical procedures are straightforward and the outcomes (results) are reasonable. However, I do not see any discussions in each subsection in Discussion. Therefore, this paper is very unclear how this study does improve SRF production and contribute for future research. It is also unclear how similar or dissimilar to past studies. At least some discussions are needed to each subsection in Discussion. Further, I would like to suggest this paper to be considered as a review paper but not an original article since authors did not use their original data sets.

Minor editing of English language will be required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

I wish to extend my sincere gratitude for your valuable time and effort in reviewing our article. Your comments and suggestions have helped the authors to improve the quality of the manuscript.

The article has been improved based on the comments and suggestions of the other reviewers. All the changes made can be found in the paper.

Best regards,

Jaime Martín Pascual.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

My main criticism is to be prepared as a review paper since I do not see any novel results. However, I do not see any changes on the revised manuscript and your response on the originality to be published an article but not review.

Minor editing of English language will be required.