Wood Waste Management from the Furniture Industry: The Environmental Performances of Recycling, Energy Recovery, and Landfill Treatments
, Darli Vieira 3 and Alencar Bravo 3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article “Management of Wood Waste from Furniture industries: The Environmental Performances of Recycling, Energy Recovery and Landfill Treatments” is original and aroused my great interest. It raises very important topics related to the broadly understood circular economy (CE) and waste management in the wood industry. The authors analyze the environmental aspects and the impact of 5 different wood waste (WW) management scenarios generated in the furniture industry. The LCA (life cycle assessment) technique used is performed correctly. I have not come across such an approach to the topic, so I consider the article to be very valuable. The authors received research results showing that Scenarios 1 and 2 are the most favorable for the environment, 3 and 4 - less favorable, and landfill disposal (Scenario 5) is the least favorable. Scenario 1 (medium-density fiberboard (MDF) production) brings the most environmental benefits. The goals of the article were achieved, the conclusions are clear and result from the study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review more relevant research, broaden and deepen your literature review, focusing particularly on the most recent studies where the life cycle analysis (LCA) tool was used to quantify environmental impacts. This will help ensure that your research aligns with the latest advances in the research field.
The contribution and the novelty of the article need more elaboration. New references in the field of study should be cited since there are many scientific articles that deal with the life cycle analysis (LCA) tool that was used to quantify environmental impacts.
Describe more clearly the methodological structure used for the research carried out.
Indicate the validation of the proposed methodology to verify the robustness of the results.
The conclusions should include a comparison with the results presented in the secondary literature. Carrying out a comparative analysis with other research or models used will strengthen the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The publication you have prepared is an interesting research material. The publication has been prepared according to the guidelines for IMRAD structures. In my opinion, all the sections required by a scientific journal are present. In particular, the discussion where the authors discuss their research and the extensive research background of the topic should be appreciated. In my opinion, the clarity of the publication from beginning to end should be appreciated. It allows the reader to understand the research methods and the research that has been prepared. I did not find any factual errors and the work itself is written in "simple" and appropriate international English.
In my opinion, the publication is suitable for printing after editorial correction. Some of the figures and graphs should be rearranged.
Yours sincerely,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
