Life Cycle Assessment of Sugar Palm Fiber Reinforced-Sago Biopolymer Composite Takeout Food Container
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper investigated the environmental impacts of a takeout food container production using LCA. The title is interesting, but there are several major issues that need to be addressed before publication:
The title can be changed to “ The environmental impacts of a bio-based takeout food container production”.
- I did not find it professional to use “very low-” in the abstract.
- You have stated that the human health effect of one kg production of the investigated product is13 × 10-9 DALY and then at the end of the abstract it is said that “raw materials harvesting, manufacturing biocomposite, and forming it to the takeout food container will not harm human health” how it is possible that that the human health damage category has a Daly value meanwhile it has “not harm human health effect”?
- The paper needs to be edited by an English specialist.
- Firs sentence of the abstract “"Almost half of the total plastics produced are used for short-term applications such as food packaging". where is the reference?
- Why the amount of N2O (as one of the most important GHG emissions) is not included I the foreground (on-site) emissions?
- “Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an internationally standardized method to determine the 50 potential environmental impacts of a product over its entire lifecycle” has copied form “Venkatachalam, V., Spierling, S., Horn, R. and Endres, H.J., 2018. LCA and eco-design: consequential and attributional approaches for bio-based plastics. Procedia CIRP , 69 , pp.579-584.” without mentioning the reference!
- Why you used ReCiPe as the impact assessment methodology? It should be specified in the manuscript.
- Fig 2 is not clear
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
The manuscript has been revised. More impact categories damage assessment results are discussed in the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please take out the abbreviations in the title
Please do not value the Degree of impact if it is not compared to other systems.
A comparison to conventional food containers, however, would also improve the work.
CH4 is normally not considered as hazardous substance.
Investigated impact categories do not become clear in the abstract.
Introduction not structured clearly, many claims without references.
Main results of studies mentioned in introduction should be given.
What is a "prospective cradle-to-grave consideration"?
Please provide Units in Figure 1. For the Volume cm3 might be better understandable than mm3.
The FU should also provide the number of Food containers.
L 158 please use System boundaries instead of phases
Figure 2: Input and Outputs are considered within the System boundary
Table 1 also addresses foreground data. Background data is taken from ecoinvent.
Handling of multifunctionality must be addressed (what happens to byproducts?)
Midpoint indicators should be given additionally. DALY numbers are hardly understandable.
Please highlight where primary data comes from.
The material and Energy demand of each process should be given.
Uncertainty in Impact categories should be addressed
Conclusion is not useful since a comparison is missing.
Production processes should be described in more detail.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
The whole manuscript has been revised with more impacts categories discussed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article presents an important topic with appropriate designed method. However, the paper needs improvements before any recommendation for publication. Following are my specific comments:
- The authors need to pay attention more to the english along the paper, to ensure a clear understanding of the content. In many parts, there is a need for re-writing, the sentences are not clear and the grammar is not correct. English editing is needed (especially for abstract and introduction)
- The abstract could be shortened more focusing on the purpose, main method used and main results and significance of the study without going into details.
- In introduction, on lines 118-123 you mentioned the gap that exist in literature but that was not based on evidence by saying "the authors believe ...". The gap should be clearly defined and shown based on previous literature and then the authors should show the need for their current paper and study based on the gap defined (arguments should be provided)
- Lines 150-151: The sentence and meaning is not clear. Please clarify.
- Figure 2: please insert a note about what does it mean the grey colour in figure
- The scope should be justified. Why is the use phase excluded from the assessment?
- Lines 228-229: what are the impact categories? why did you choose those? a presentation of these impact categories considered should be provided in goal and scope.
- I would recommend to present the recommendations and future work in separate section than the results or within conclusion.
- Add few sentences about the limitations of the work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
The manuscript has been revised with more impact categories discussed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for sending me the revised version of the manuscript. The manuscript has been improved, but, I am still not happy with the title of the manuscript. The authors need to figure it out how to find an appropriate for this paper.
There are still few grammatical errors which need to be fixed before publication.
The first sentence of the abstract can be removed.
In the abstract, it is said “The results indicate total human health damage of 2.63×10-5 DALY and ecosystem damage of 9.46×10-8 species.year” is it per package? You should specify it in the abstract.
In Table 2, Simapro is not a database. It is a software for LCA analysis. You can find different databases on Simapro software.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
the manuscript has been improved.
Please have aagin a look at table 1.
Water might be also from nature or should be spezified if tap water is used. Foreground data is also listed above in the table. Probably you mean direct emissions from processes. However, then also direct emissions of other processes than EoL such as from Transport etc. should be listed. Please also arrange the LCI according to the main processes shown in Figure 2. Please also indicate if the quantities all refer to the FU.
Please also check again the labeling of the figures. e.g. figure 10 presents a contribution Analysis of different GHG gases to the damage of GWI
Please Always give the reference unit like "The results indicate total human health damage of 2.63×10-5 DALY and ecosystem damage of 9.46×10-8 species.year per kg food containers.
Please provide a graphic with the contributions of each category to the total DALY or PDF.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have adequately addressed the comments.
Some minor comments:
- The title needs to be adjusted for more clarification about the content of the paper.
- Some grammatical errors still exist along the paper.
- I don't see any note for figure 2 regarding the use of grey colour.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The manuscript has been significantly improved. It is now ready to be published in Applied sciences.
Congrats!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Do you really use electricty for drying of sugar Palm Fiber and drying biocomposite?
Why electricity used for grinding is provided in MJ instead of kWh? Same for compunding.
Please provide the FU in the labelling of table 1 that reader underdtand the quantities.
Please add a sentence regaring uncertainty. Endpoints (DALY, PDF) as well as data represtativness go along with high uncertainty.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
