Reuse of Steel Residue in Polypropylene Matrices for the Production of Plastic Wood, Aiming at Decarbonization
, Carina M. Stolz 1, Assed N. Haddad 1 and Dieter Thomas Boer 3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease find my comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The paper is written in very good English. It is very difficult to spot mistakes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the reviewed paper (Reuse of Steel Residue in Polypropylene Matrices for the Production of Plastic Wood, Aiming at Decarbonization), authors have proposed new plastic composites with the use of steel residue. The experiment was built and conducted according to strict scientific logic. The received data is sound. The paper is well written, and the English language is of high quality. Although it is a quality manuscript, it is defined as a Major revision needed before it is ready for publishing in the Sustainability journal: the most significant comments are given below, and a complete list of comments is in the attached pdf file.
1) The plagiarism check gives a result of 11%, which must be reduced by at least a little. Although much of it cannot be avoided (related to the applied methods and analysis of the results) and is not from fewer sources, it must be done wherever possible. For example, the introduction's first paragraph has many statements identical to those already published. The phrase The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is repeated several times in the text; as already stated (for the first time) the abbreviation, IPCC, should be used as such after the first mention. Section 2.5. also, in the explanations, a couple of sentences have already been published; also, 3.1.2. section (but it is impossible to avoid it there). Multiple repetition of waste content also falls into this category and should be avoided where possible. Objectively, the above percentage is not the right measure, and there is no single reference that matches a large number of words. However, authors must make an extra effort to avoid everything possible.
2) One of the major issues of the paper is its composition, where most of the text is a description, a smaller part is the results, and finally, the smallest contribution is the discussion (real analysis of the results). Though there are similar structures in the papers published in Sustainability, it could be improved (some suggestions are given below).
3) Although there is a novelty in this study, the basic idea is not. It is more about adding a new mixture in the plastic granulate (PP in this case). Although using fluff could be innovative, the mixture is not something extraordinary. Moreover, it contains only 13% metal and is mainly polymers (various plastics and rubber) and organics, which is classical waste often used for plastic composites. Although it is innovative and novel in the context given in the paper, it could not be considered as a high novelty.
4) The introduction section must be better written - actually, it should be rewritten. It is more a description of the paper’s subject than a literature review.
Although the authors stressed that “no other studies or news have been found about companies that have explored the incorporation of Fluff into plastic composites,” they should do a better literature review of “wood plastics” and plastic composites generally (use of recycled material and their properties).
Despite using new (not older than five years) references, their number could be higher. It is not just the volume of the literature but its use, as stated in the previous paragraph.
Finally (for the Introduction section, but even for the whole paper), when using innovative concepts for environment and sustainability in mind, all the aspects should be considered. Many papers solve one problem but produce some new ones, which is not the case here, but the problem with possible microplastics needs to be mentioned. The literature is not decisive about this issue but favorable for this kind of composite (see, for instance, doi:10.3390/polym12010166).
5) Analysis of some figures is just a description of them. Furthermore, tables given after these texts repeat the data presented; in that context, they are redundant. This is especially the case for Figure 6/Table2 and Figure 7/Table3 combinations.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The English language is at a high level. However, there are several spelling and grammar errors in the text. Most are given in the comments (pdf file), but the whole manuscript should be carefully checked.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for addressing my comments. In my opinion, the manuscript has significantly improved.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are only minor English errors.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPaper quality is improved and now can be published in present form. No new issues was found.
