Towards Plastic Circularity: Current Practices in Plastic Waste Management in Japan and Sri Lanka

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have reviewed the paper "Towards Plastic Circularity: Current Practices in Plastic Waste 2 Management in Japan and Sri Lanka". I found the article interesting, as well as the idea of comparing two countries and to identify differences and lessons learned. However, the authors must make more effort to get a deeper understanding and discussion of the results. My specific comments are:

 ABSTRACT

 

-          Include specific data and results in the Abstract, as it now mentions only general information, which could be inferred without doing the comparison

-          Line 14: eliminate the word “and”

-          Do not include in the keywords words or phrases that are already in the title

INTRODUCTION

-          Please verify and compare the data of global plastic pollution (line 31), which currently is closer to 400 Mton

-          Line 34: Are you talking about annual plastic waste production? Please specify. Also, the 2017 data should be verified; it seems it is related to plastic production, not to plastic waste production

-          Line 55: adopted instead of adopting

-          Line 62: What do you mean by “preliminary strategies”?

-          Give a more complete overview of thermal treatments. Incineration sometimes does not require high amounts of energy, and neither produces hazardous emissions if the proper controls are in place

-          Give examples of the hazardous compounds that could leachate from the degradation of plastics in landfills (line 71)

-          All the introduction regarding strategies for plastic waste management is based on only one reference. Please consult other sources and give a more complete and balanced overview

-          Briefly discuss and describe the advanced technologies for PWM

METHODOLOGY

-          Clearly describe how the secondary sources were found, selected, and analyzed

-          Explain how the interviews were conducted, as well as the strategies used to validate and integrate the gathered information

-          Include the questionnaire and outline of the interviews to stakeholders as supplementary information in a repository

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

-          Line 159: import instead of importation

-          Figures should appear after they are mentioned in the manuscript

-          First paragraph of page 5: please give a more complete analysis, discussing and comparing the evolution of the net consumption of plastics (not only imports). That is relevant given that, as you mention, Japan produces plastics. Also, present your results on a per capita basis to allow a better comparison

-          Figure 2 is difficult to read, as the points are too big. Again, it is not only the imports that are interesting but the net consumption

-          Explain why the information about the imports in Sri Lanka comes from a Japanese source

-          Describe and compare clearly the main stages of waste management (not only plastics) in both countries

-          The paragraph in lines 234-241 includes data without references; the sources must be cited

-          Explain and give examples of PP-based packaging that is currently recycled in Sri Lanka

-          It is unclear which lessons can be learned by Sri Lanka, based on the analysis of the Japanese case. Please discuss this further.

CONCLUSIONS

-          Review grammar (to identify) in the first sentence

GENERAL COMMENTS

-          The authors assume that the readers are familiar with Japan and Sri Lanka, which is not the case for most of them. Please include information that allows understanding of the main characteristics of both countries (population, size, main economic activities, location, per capita GDP, etc.)  

Author Response

Refer to the attached file 

Reviewer 2 Report

The work presented cannot be considered a Research Paper. It is an informative press release about the state of the question of the generation of plastic in two very different countries.

At no time does the problem addressed go into depth, and neither can it be considered a Review due to the low number of references cited.

The graphics seem to be taken from a final degree project, in addition, it is in a totally different format from that of the magazine and they do not even seem to have been made by the authors. It looks like images cut from a *.pdf document

The depth with which the results are described and the conclusions are commented is very basic and the discussion is not deepened, making reference to other studies or indicating the implications derived from the research.

My consideration is that the work should be rejected

Author Response

Refer to the attached file 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

It is interesting to note the similarities and differences between Japan and Sri Lanka when it comes to plastic waste management (PWM). Both countries are island nations and face similar challenges in managing their plastic waste due to limited land space and dependence on marine resources. However, Japan is a developed country with a more established and sophisticated PWM system, while Sri Lanka is a developing country that is still in the process of improving its PWM system.

But the introduction is too long, it's hard to understand the main purpose of your main question addressed by the research.

 

1 The Material and method are too simplistic, making it easy for readers to wonder what the research focus of this article is trying to express. The number of respondents is not listed. Unable to judge the representativeness

 

2. The conclusion should be more closely linked to the research questions of the authors that form the basis of the investigation.

3. It is difficult to draw the conclusions outlined in the article from the analysis design of this study. It seems more like common knowledge.

4. Proofreading is needed to correct spelling errors and other formatting mistakes.

5. Regarding the figures and tables, the sources are not mentioned in the manuscript. Providing the sources of the figures and tables will help to increase transparency and credibility.

 

Author Response

Refer to the attached file 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

 

Manuscript: Towards Plastic Circularity: Current Practices in Plastic Waste Management in Japan and Sri Lanka.

Decision: Major corrections

Consider the following suggestions below for the improvement of your manuscript:

1.     Please, improve the abstract and mention the overarching purpose of the work and state the important outcomes/findings and a way forward sentence to conclude the abstract.

2.     The plastic pollution generated, and health issues associated with its toxicity are relatively important for investigation. In your introduction section, add recent literature that describes the genesis of toxicity from plastic wastes and link the situations with their implications to human health. Some of these issues were recently addressed in section 4 of 10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115758 article. I recommend that you read that section and cite it. 

3.     On page 2, line 55-92; most of contents within the paragraph lack citations.  I suggest that authors should carefully check their manuscript to avoid reuse or recycle of other work without citation.

4.     Materials and methods should be more detailed and grouped according to sub-sections.

5.     Please discuss some your findings by supporting it with citations or backed up by proper logical explanation.

6.     What is the practical implication of this study for Japan and Sri Lanka? Also, discuss and explain the appropriate policies should be based on your research findings. These should be directly related to the plastic pollution generated, and also link the situations with their impacts to human health. It is strongly recommended to add this as a sub-section, before the conclusion.

7.     The conclusion is not only a summary of the work results, but also puts forward the practical significance of the work done and the prospect for the future.

Author Response

Refer to the attached file 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the authors have attended most of my comments related to the introduction, those directed to the Methods and Results were not addressed:

-          Clearly describe how the secondary sources were found, selected and analyzed

 

-          Explain how the interviews were conducted, as well as the strategies used to validate and integrate the gathered information

-          First paragraph of page 5: please give a more complete analysis, discussing and comparing the evolution of the net consumption of plastics (not only imports). That is relevant given that, as you mention, Japan produces plastics. Also, present your results in per capita basis, to allow a better comparison

-          Figure 2 is difficult to read, as the points are too big. Again, is not only the imports that are interesting, but the net consumption

-          Explain why the information about the imports in Sri Lanka come from a Japanese source

 

-          Describe and compare clearly the main stages of waste management (not only plastics) in both countries

-          Explain and give examples of PP-based packaging that is currently recycled in Sri Lanka

 

-          It is unclear which lessons can be learned by Sri Lanka, based on the analysis of the Japanese case. Please discuss this further. 

 

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made a significant improvement to the submitted manuscript. In addition, they have been able to respond to the issues raised by all reviewers.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

It is still unclear which lessons can be learned by Sri Lanka based on the analysis of the Japanese case. Please discuss this further. The paper describes plastic waste in Sri Lanka and Japan; however, there is no further analysis, only a comparison. This issue should be explored to increase the usefulness of this research for the general reader of Sustainability.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

In general, the authors have addressed some of the reviewer’s comments. Although the manuscript can be modified further. Please consider the following suggestions below for the improvement of your manuscript:

 

 

It is strongly recommended to add this as a sub-section, before the conclusion. The section should discuss and explain the appropriate policies should be based on your research findings. These should be directly related to the plastic pollution generated, and also link the situations with their impacts on human health.

I suggest that authors should cite more published articles rather than referencing webpage or Britannica. This 10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115758 article can be cited.

 

 

 

Author Response

please refer to the attached file 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed most of my comments, so I recommend the paper to be published

Reviewer 3 Report

Based on my analysis of the text, I would recommend this article for publication. The authors provide a thorough analysis of plastic waste management practices in Japan and Sri Lanka, highlighting similarities and differences between the two countries. They also provide valuable recommendations for improving plastic waste management practices in Sri Lanka based on Japan's existing practices. The language used in the article is clear and concise, and the authors effectively communicate their research findings to readers. Overall, this article makes a valuable contribution to the field of waste management and would be a valuable addition to any academic publication focused on sustainability or environmental issues.