More Than 30 Years of PVC Recycling—Need for Regulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a valuable and insightful study addressing the recycling industry of PVC, with the authors advocating for regulatory measures in PVC production. However, there are several minor issues that should be addressed before the manuscript is suitable for publication in this journal:

1.  In lines 239 and 247, the references cited are not found. It is recommended that the authors review the relevant literature to provide authoritative sources for these citations.

2.  In the section on "Chemical Recycling of PVC," the manuscript would benefit from the inclusion of additional technical details and a more structured roadmap. Moreover, there is a noticeable gap in the discussion of recent advancements in PVC recycling research.

3.  The authors are encouraged to incorporate information on physical recycling techniques and to elaborate on the progress in this area within the article.

4. To enhance the academic rigor of the paper, it is suggested that the authors expand on the development directions and technical advancements in PVC recycling. For reference, recent publications such as those in Nature Sustainability (2023, 6, 1258-1267), SusMat (2022, 2(6): 708-719; 2023, 3(3): 431-440), and Nature Reviews Methods Primers (2023,3:44) may be considered.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your constructive comments and valuable hints.

Best regards,

Uwe Lahl and Barbara Zeschmar-Lahl

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is not a research article, but rather a regulatory policy on PVC. The topic of the article is important, but the way they present the different chapters is not motivating. 

The abstract doesn't really summarize what was presented in the paper. The abstract should really motivate you to read the paper and should really describe what you want to achieve with the paper.

There are no connecting paragraphs between the different chapters and subchapters.

The paper, as written, would be more interesting to government entities that govern PVC policies.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your constructive comments and valuable hints.

Best regards,

Uwe Lahl and Barbara Zeschmar-Lahl

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.         It is estimated that there are approximately 160 million tonnes of PVC stored in buildings and infrastructure (stockpiles), and this amount is still growing. Would it be possible to discuss the implications of this decision

2.         Examples include the terms "chlor-alkali electrolysis" and "hydrochloric acid utilisation". It is important to define and explain these terms so that the reader understands what you are trying to convey

3.         There is a reference in the article's introduction to "especially in regard to environmental and health issues" and the way in which these issues are specifically affected.

4.         It is stated on page 3 - as explained in [i] - that PVC can only be used if a stabiliser is first added, so the construction industry is also a desirable area of application for PVC. Please explain.

5.         On page 9 of the article, it is stated that the chlorine problem in EU incineration plants has largely been resolved by dilution with waste solid waste.

6.         Page 10 Please provide an explanation as to why large quantities of PVC can be landfilled technically. Many European countries have banned this practice

7.         Is there a method of disposing of waste PVC that is most effective for resolving inventory issues?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your constructive comments and valuable hints.

Best regards,

Uwe Lahl and Barbara Zeschmar-Lahl

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This new version of the paper has improved a lot and it is really clear what we want to achieve with it.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept