Identification of Hazardous Waste Risk Level in Central Java Province, Indonesia
, Fatma Lestari 2,3, Sifa Fauzia 1, Laila Fitria 1, Agustino Zulys 3,4, Budi Hartono 1,3, Adonis Muzanni 5, Saraswati A. Satyawardhani 3, Rajib Shaw 6 and Setyo Prabowo 7
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I’ve just finished a review of the manuscript sustainability-2209846 titled: “Identification of Hazardous Waste Risk Level in Central Java Province, Indonesia” and written by the authors: Zakianis Zakianis Zakianis, Fatma Lestari, Sifa Fauzia, Laila Fitria, Agustino Zulys, Budi Hartono, Adonis Muzanni, Saraswati Andani Satyawardhani, Haruki Agustina, Rajib Shaw, Setyo Prabowo.
In general, the paper is interesting and written in accordance with the topic of the special issue Risk Analysis, Prevention and Control of Ground-Based Hazards.
The English is good, the paper is readable, and it is easy to understand. I do not have any significant objection, and from that point I suggest the Editor to accept it for publication. I have some comments, and for that reason, I suggest acceptance, but after minor revision.
My other comments are as follows.
1. In line 250 and throughout the text. The authors wrote that in 2021 the total amount of generated hazardous waste in the Java Provice was 2,886,974,024, which means 2 billion, 886 million 974 thousand, and 024 tons of hazardous waste per one year?! It is not possible that the amount of hazardous waste was generated in the area which is 32-33 km2. If that is the yearly production of hazardous waste, my question is, where is that amount of waste disposed of in the last ten years? Please have in mind that it is speaking about hazardous waste. Please in the whole paper use comma (,) or dot (.) only to mark decimal numbers. It is probably a mistake, and the authors must in the whole text do a recalculation and correct all figures, numbers, and tables.
2. Figures 7 and 8 are not readable and authors must replace them with new files with better resolution.
Best regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Identification of Hazardous Waste Risk Level in Central Java 2 Province, Indonesia.
It’s interesting paper but not well organised. Its mainly looks like as an report. In my opinion major revision have to be done according to suggestions given below for publication.
The amount of waste (2,886,974,024 tons) written on line 24 in the summary should be reviewed (line 24). In the introduction, it is stated that the global production of hazardous waste is 400 million tons per year. Considering this amount, there is inconsistency with the approximate 3 billion tons value stated in the summary.
The first paragraph is written rather confusingly. The paragraph should be rearranged.
In the second paragraph, it is not understood what is meant by the term perverted waste (line 40).
The sentence between Line 66-68 is not understood
Line 82 hormone distributors can be edited as endocrine distruptors
Line 103-105 sentence is not understood
It is recommended to rewrite the Introduction section from the beginning.
While writing the Introduction, the following article can be used to increase the examples.
Fatos Germirli Babuna et all. Hazardous waste generation in Turkish pesticide industry Desalination and Water Treatment, Volume 57, 2016 - Issue 54, Pages: 26280-26285
The language throughout the article should be revised. As such, the article is not clear and fluent.
The method used is not clearly explained.
All quantitative data in the article should be reviewed. It is thought that the use of dots and commas is mixed. This situation may also affect the accuracy of the data obtained within the scope of the study.
Throughout the article, the relationship between disaster and hazardous waste is not well expressed. These parts should be related to each other.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript does not present the novelty and the added value of a research engineering work that the journal requires. It is a very good study on the potential risk in this area from hazardous wastes.
Thus, even though is a good engineering work, solid and representative, is not a research work either presents related interest.
The authors are encouraged to write again their work in a way that their good engineering evaluation can provide the required added value in the scientific community.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The obtained results should be interpreted by comparing them with the literature.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have highly improved their work. What is of paramount importance and is missing is the actions should be taken to reduce this risk which I propose to be given in a tabulated form
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
