Composting and Mechanical Biological Treatment for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Bizerte, Tunisia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well written manuscript describing a case study of developing waste management in a part of Tunisia towards lower GHG foot print. 

Overall comment:

The manuscript sometimes site figures, with many significant numbers, but other times not. I suggest rounding of numbers more often in the manuscript. An example of this is in l48, where I suggest writing 12.5 million in stead of 12,474,393, when giving the population number of Tunisia.

Specific comments:

l69: I suggest removing the word "staggering", as it is a loaded term.

l99: "2000T/year" - I suggest replace with "2000 tons/year"

Table 1.: Is this information relevant? Consider not including this table.

Fig. 2: Names of months should be capitalized. Also, consider having names of months under the columns instead of using color coding.

l200: consider replacing "categorie" with "category"

Fig. 4. Can you site a source for the information on waste composition?

l427-428: this statement could use some more elaboration  with regards to GHG emissions. I suggest including references with regards to GHG from composting (methane and nitrous oxide) in comparison to present practise (landfilling). This information should probably be included in another section in the paper.

l515: organic carbon and black carbon contributes to global warming? This statement should be elaborated upon.

Fig. 10: The figure shows the bottom line. Can you provide more details behind these results? 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your commitment to this review process

Please see the attachment.

Best regards 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The research presented in the paper titled: “Composting and MBT for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Bizerte, Tunisia” aims to develop effective solutions and strategies for waste management in the Tunisian municipality of Bizerte in light of the global imperative to mitigate climate change.

The manuscript is clear and presented in a well-structured manner. The cited references are relevant. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. The statements are adequate.

The Authors should make significant improvements to the standard of the reference list.

In my opinion, the paper may be reconsidered after minor revision.

 

Specific comments:

Lines 2-3: Improve the title. Title should be unambiguous and must reflect the content of the article. Please be specific, not general or vague. Delete the abbreviation.

Lines 10-26: The Abstract is well structured. Please just add a briefly conclusion (highlight what you found as major data, relationships, or your interpretation/main consequences of your findings (conclusion/originality).

Lines 27-28: I propose to delete the keywords that are used in the title of the paper.

Line 34: “[1] [2]” should be changed to [1,2]. Please correct it in the same way in the rest of the text.

Line 70: “greenhouse gas” should be changed to GHG. Please change it in the same way in the rest of the text.

Line 95: “[17] [18] [19]” should be changed to [17-19]. Please correct it in the same way in the rest of the text.

Line 73: “8 %” and “37 %” should be changed to 8% and 37%. Please correct it in the same way in the rest of the text.

Line 173: “january” should be changed to January, “february” to February, “march” to March etc.

Line 304: : “N2O” should be changed to N₂O, “cu” to Cu, “K2O” to K₂O etc.

Line 320: Check the units in Table 4

Line 471: “4.Mecanichal” should be changed to 4. Mechanical

Lines 615-722: I suggest expanding the list of references. Please carefully prepare the references list in accordance with the journal’s guidelines which can be found here https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions#references

Author Response

Thank you for your commitment to this review process.

Please see the attachment.

Best regards 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, the topic of your manuscript is very topical in the context of the current climate crisis. The fundamental problem with the manuscript from my point of view is the lack of scientificity from the perspective of the global scientific community, or answer the question why your manuscript should be of interest to the global scientific community.

I am sending further serious remarks:
- I do not recommend using the abbreviation in the title of the manuscript,
- the manuscript lacks a clearly defined aim of the manuscript,
- some keywords are not appropriate ("suitability"),
- references are poorly used (they are always at the end of the paragraph, not at the end of the sentences),
- the theoretical definition of the problem is insufficient,
- text must always be given between chapter and subchapter (2. and 2.1.; 3. and 3.1. and 3.1.1. etc.),
- the total in Table 1 is not 100%,
- Figure 4 lacks references,
- the methodology of the manuscript is not conclusive and not sufficiently explained,
- in Figure 10, the legend to all curves lacks captions,
- the contribution of the manuscript to the scientific community is missing,
- the limits of the research are missing,
- the limits of the manuscript are missing,
- discussion of results with other relevant manuscripts is missing,
- the entire manuscript is more of an interpretive case study,
- the references are completely poorly formatted,
- there are very few articles in the references from journals with impact factor from internationally recognized scientific databases.

Based on these facts, I recommend that the manuscript be rejected.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In some passages of the manuscript it is necessary to improve the quality of the English language (grammar, phrases, vocabulary).

Author Response

Thank you for your commitment to this review process.

Please see the attachment.

Best regards, 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The difference between composting and MBT should be explained more clearly.

76  has made its location extremely strategic made it the --> 2x made

 

85 50.524 tons --> 50,524 tons,

 

Fig. 2: Months should be written in capital letters

 

194  Method :German --> Method: German

 

200 𝒄ategorie --> category

 

207 cetegory --> category 

 

Fig. 4: What is the red part?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor revision

Author Response

Thank you for your commitment to this review process.

Please see the attachment.

Best regards, 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for incorporating some of my comments. Unfortunately, however, major criticisms of the manuscript still remain. The fundamental problem with the manuscript from my point of view is the lack of scientificity from the perspective of the global scientific community, or answer the question why your manuscript should be of interest to the global scientific community.

I am sending further serious remarks:
- the corrected aim is not sufficient for a scientific article in an impacted journal,
- references are poorly used (they are always at the end of the paragraph, not at the end of the sentences - references 1-4),
- the theoretical definition of the problem is insufficient,
- text must always be given between chapter and subchapter (2. and 2.1.; 3. and 3.1. and 3.1.1. etc.),
- Figure 4 lacks references,
- the methodology of the manuscript is not conclusive and not sufficiently explained,
- the contribution of the manuscript to the worldwide scientific community is missing,
- the limits of the manuscript are missing,
- discussion of results with other relevant manuscripts is missing,
- the entire manuscript is more of an interpretive case study,
- the references are completely poorly formatted,
- there are very few articles in the references from journals with impact factor from internationally recognized scientific databases.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback.

Please see the attachment.

Best regards, 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf