Expert Survey on the Impact of Cardboard and Paper Recycling Processes, Fiber-Based Composites/Laminates and Regulations, and Their Significance for the Circular Economy and the Sustainability of the German Paper Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

With the increasing attention paid to sustainable development, the reuse/recycle of materials becoming popular since it provides a strategy in serving sources, satisfying requirement of circular economy. In this work, the authors evaluate 58 questionnaires answered by experts and practitioners. Surely the contents match the journal scope well. I support its publication after addressing below concernings.

1 The authors are encouraged to discuss the environmental impact of papers.

2 It may be better to introduce some cases of recycling.

3 In view of practical application, the authors should consider the economy cost when evaluating the recycling.

4 The market volume of each type of waste paper should be given.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We thank you for your review and recommendations. We addressed all you comments and we amended our manuscript.

Jürgen Belle, Daniele Hirtz, Sven Sängerlaub

 

 

Comments 0: “With the increasing attention paid to sustainable development, the reuse/recycle of materials becoming popular since it provides a strategy in serving sources, satisfying requirement of circular economy. In this work, the authors evaluate 58 questionnaires answered by experts and practitioners. Surely the contents match the journal scope well. I support its publication after addressing below concernings.”

Response 0: Thank you.

 

Comments 1: “1 The authors are encouraged to discuss the environmental impact of papers.”

Response 1: We discussed the environmental impact of paper in the beginning of the manuscript, and we refer to relevant LCA studies where the environmental impact is depicted in detail.

 

Comments 2: “2 It may be better to introduce some cases of recycling.”

Response 2: In the Supplementary Materials we added information about the recycling process of paper.

 

Comments 3: “3 In view of practical application, the authors should consider the economy cost when evaluating the recycling.”

Response 3: We added information about cost in 1.1.

 

Comments 4: “4 The market volume of each type of waste paper should be given.”

Response 4: We added information about the volumes in 3.1.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a detailed comprehensive investigation on the effect of cardboard and paper recycling processes and laws on the German paper industry. This paper contains some useful aspects and the authors have identified an area that needs further work.

1. The purpose of survey and the shortcomings of current investigation and research should be reflected in the abstract. And the more quantitative conclusions should be provided in the abstract.

2. The author's analysis is based on simple processing of raw data and the analysis of research data is too simple. How to ensure the accuracy and discreteness of research results?

3. The conclusion section should be discussed point by point and more concise. Meanwhile, quantitative conclusions should also be provided if necessary.

4. The significance of investigation and research for subsequent research, as well as the direction of future research in the paper industry, should be added to the outlook

5. In the conclusion part, the author mentioned that ‘It is to be expected that fiber-based composites/laminates will be more readily accepted for recycling if they are well designed.’ For fiber-based composites/laminates, what kind of design can be considered to be appropriate, which refers to the design of material composition, structure or environmental effect?

6. 73 references are too many for article, can the author reduce it to about 50?

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We thank you for your review and recommendations. We addressed all you comments and we amended our manuscript.

Jürgen Belle, Daniele Hirtz, Sven Sängerlaub

 

Comments 0: “The paper presents a detailed comprehensive investigation on the effect of cardboard and paper recycling processes and laws on the German paper industry. This paper contains some useful aspects and the authors have identified an area that needs further work.”

Response 0: Thank you.

 

Comments 1: “1. The purpose of survey and the shortcomings of current investigation and research should be reflected in the abstract. And the more quantitative conclusions should be provided in the abstract.”

Response 1: We added information about the limitations of this study in the abstract. The most important quantitative results have been already mentioned in the abstract.

 

Comments 2: “2. The author's analysis is based on simple processing of raw data and the analysis of research data is too simple. How to ensure the accuracy and discreteness of research results?”

Response 2: To evaluate the data, the raw data from the survey was analyzed more in detail in order to analyze and evaluate links between the responses. In order to obtain honest answers to problems and classifications, the questionnaire and the evaluation were created in such a way that no direct link from answer to company can be derived. Nevertheless, objective data and classifications of the paper industry were obtained. This is the added value of the results of this study compared to recycling tests and recycling protocols, which do not always provide an objective picture of production practice.

 

Comments 3: “3. The conclusion section should be discussed point by point and more concise. Meanwhile, quantitative conclusions should also be provided if necessary.”

Response 3: The authors have discussed results quantitatively in the results section and also paid attention to quantitative data in the abstract. A further, more intensive quantitative discussion in the Conclusions would require additional literature references to classify the results. This would give the manuscript the character of a review. Therefore, the authors suggest and ask for the reviewer's understanding that the Conclusions should not be expanded further.

 

Comments 4: “4. The significance of investigation and research for subsequent research, as well as the direction of future research in the paper industry, should be added to the outlook”

Response 4: We amended the conclusions. In the Conclusions, we referred to Cepi, which deals with these issues.

 

Comments 5: “5. In the conclusion part, the author mentioned that ‘It is to be expected that fiber-based composites/laminates will be more readily accepted for recycling if they are well designed.’ For fiber-based composites/laminates, what kind of design can be considered to be appropriate, which refers to the design of material composition, structure or environmental effect?”

Response 5: In the Conclusions we describe requirements and refer to relevant guidelines. It should be noted that the technologies and methods are in flux from company to company and may vary depending on the region. It is therefore not possible to make general statements.

 

Comments 6: “6. 73 references are too many for article, can the author reduce it to about 50?”

Response 6: The authors agree that many references are cited. However, the results of this study must be considered, discussed and categorized in an overall context, which requires many references. The complexity of the topic leads to this. In addition, even further information and discussion was requested by other reviewers. We hope for the understanding of the reviewer.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work concerns a relevant and important aspect of manufacturing – recycling of used materials. The use of fiber-based composite materials is increasing and it is necessary to develop measures for their successful processing. The authors used rather representative data from surveys. The answers from the manufacturers allowed us to get actual information on the problem and find out the needs of real companies manufacturing products from paper for recycling. I have no critical comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

We thank you for your review and recommendations.

Jürgen Belle, Daniele Hirtz, Sven Sängerlaub

 

Comments 1: “The work concerns a relevant and important aspect of manufacturing – recycling of used materials. The use of fiber-based composite materials is increasing and it is necessary to develop measures for their successful processing. The authors used rather representative data from surveys. The answers from the manufacturers allowed us to get actual information on the problem and find out the needs of real companies manufacturing products from paper for recycling. I have no critical comments.”

Response 1: Thank you.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been revised carefully and discussion has been strengthened. It has been improved greatly. But some minor modifications are needed.

1. line 122 and line 155-156: These two are repeated with the following and should be deleted. And the order of references needs to be updated again.

2. I understand the complexity of the research topic mentioned by the author, which requires referencing a large amount of literature. But are there not many confirmed 96 references in the revised manuscript? Has the author found nearly 100 references in similar article papers?

3. The reference in the second paragraph of the conclusion should be deleted, which is not appropriate in the conclusion part, even in the expression of the prospect. In addition, the prospect part should be less than the conclusion part.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We thank you for your review and recommendations. We addressed all you comments and we amended our manuscript.

Jürgen Belle, Daniele Hirtz, Sven Sängerlaub

 

Comments 0: “The manuscript has been revised carefully and discussion has been strengthened. It has been improved greatly. But some minor modifications are needed..”

Response 0: Thank you. We hope to be able to explain our approach to the reviewer.

 

Comments 1: “1. line 122 and line 155-156: These two are repeated with the following and should be deleted. And the order of references needs to be updated again.”

Response 1: We agree that unnecessary repetitions should be avoided. However, we could not find this issue here. It could be we did repetitions for better understanding of the text.

 

Comments 2: “2. I understand the complexity of the research topic mentioned by the author, which requires referencing a large amount of literature. But are there not many confirmed 96 references in the revised manuscript? Has the author found nearly 100 references in similar article papers?”

Response 2: We agree that excessive citations should be avoided. However, we had the situation here that Reviewer 1, and also the editor wanted more explanations and discussions, which led to more citations. There were already quite a lot of citations in the first draft because the authors felt that the journal wanted a holistic discussion. Due to the complexity and multi-layered nature of the topic, this makes sense here. The authors were particularly keen to classify the results. The topic is multi-layered, which is why the authors have tried to reflect legislation, technical aspects and the perspective of companies. We believe that the citations help to better classify our results.

 

Comments 3: “3. The reference in the second paragraph of the conclusion should be deleted, which is not appropriate in the conclusion part, even in the expression of the prospect. In addition, the prospect part should be less than the conclusion part.”

Response 3: Reviewer 2 wrote in the previous review “4. The significance of investigation and research for subsequent research, as well as the direction of future research in the paper industry, should be added to the outlook”, and “5. For fiber-based composites/laminates, what kind of design can be considered to be appropriate, which refers to the design of material composition, structure or environmental effect?” We have tried to comply with these suggestions.

We know that it is unusual to quote in the Conclusions. However, we suggest here to refer to design-for-recycling guidelines and their importance. Here it is important for the authors to classify the results of this study with the expertise of the authors. Precisely because recycling processes and standards are in a state of flux, we believe it makes sense to refer to them. Our study is because it shows where problems lie.