Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Reusable and Disposable Distribution Packaging for Fresh Food

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reading this paper, I think the paper is well structured and contains the necessary components. By using 300 rotations as a benchmark, results suggests that the use of reusable boxes in industrial settings can significantly reduce plastic resource consumption and enhance resource circularity. Meanwhile, employing VIP boxes for reuse in Korea can generate substantial added value, this fact can provide a valuable reference for production activities. However, the paper still has the following three points that need further explanation.

(1)   Please provide detailed description of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in line 49, including the definition and core components.

(2)   In Section 2.2, it is important to clarify whether the distance data between manufacturing facilities is a straight-line distance or a transportation distance.

(3)  18 environmental impact categories are selected in section 2.3. What is the reason for this selection? It would be better to explain further here.

(4) The literature review may be improved by citing more relevant papers. Just list several as follows.

Environmental performance of bioplastic packaging on fresh food produce: A consequential life cycle assessment

A hybrid visualization model for knowledge mapping: scientometrics, SAOM, and SAO

Research on carbon emissions of public bikes based on the life cycle theory

 

A minor modification suggestion:

Section 2.2, line 208, line 218:

The format needs to be further standardized to be consistent with context.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the research is well conducted, and the paper sounds well. The authors execute a quantitive evaluation of several different fresh food packages, comparing their lifecycle environmental impacts and dividing them into 18 categories. The investigation reveals valuable background for the environmentally friendly packaging industry, which consists of the empirically proven statement about reusable boxes for use in fresh food packaging. The study results showed that using reusable boxes can significantly reduce undesirable consumption of different kinds of plastic and improve the public situation with resource circularity.

 

Despite all the benefits of this research, I would like to point out some shortcomings of the paper:

 1)    Understanding the narrowness of the topic of the study and despite this, I suggest paying more attention to the following in the introduction:

- how many similar researches have been done before? The authors mentioned French, Spanish, and Scandinavian markets but did not put in order the geographical segmentation of scientific research on this topic;

-are there any other samples that have been investigated?

2)    The major concern is the motivation and justification of the study. Which is the research gap that the article fills (it isn’t clearly stated in the introduction). Why filling this gap is crucial for both research and practice?

3)    Lines 208, 218,  232 – font formatting needs to be fixed.

 

4) Line 321 and equation (2) – sentence and equation must not be separated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors investigated the life cycle of several different packaging boxes. The research is interesting and of high importance for academic staff, and industry. However, the results are not well presented, there is a lack of deep discussion of results and connection with life cycle of other plastic boxes. There is no clue if the result obtained in this work is bad or good for life cycle of boxes in different stages. Also, table 2 and table 3 are not well presented and organized, they should be made better. Figure 6 should be improved, it is too low resolution. Hence, I suggest acceptance after major revision and improvement of discussions and table, figures quality.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor revision required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made a comparative assessment of 3 different reusable and disposable distribution packagings. The topic is of great pratical use, and the following are my comments:

1. The authors should pay great attention to the format of the article, eg. Line 91, Line 187, Line 208, Line 281, Line 330-333, the figures and figure captions.

2. The number in the tables should be presented as exponential notation, not as "E±"

3. Line 330-332 should be in the materials and methods section.

4. There is a lack of full discussion about the figures and tables in Section 3.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have dealt with all my concerns.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authord did contribution to revised manuscript. I reccommend acceptance of paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I suggest this paper can be accepted.