E-Waste Management in Serbia, Focusing on the Possibility of Applying Automated Separation Using Robots

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction includes a significant part of the literature review. I recommend the authors to streamline it, focusing on:

1) their main research question/objective;

2) how are they going to answer their research question;

3) why is it important for an international reader;

4) their contribution to the literature and practice.

The use of PRISMA methodology is appropriate. The authors should explain better the exclusion of articles, because they started with quite a large number of articles and ended up with only ten. For instance, why were the articles unavailable? Also, weren't there papers included both in Clarivate and Scopus? Now, I see that they are added up.

My biggest concern is that the authors should address an international audience. As such, they should state how their study based in Serbia can be generalised for other countries, with different regulations and culture.

The conclusions should emphasize the contribution of the paper. The authors should go back to the literature and state what diferentiates them. Also, the paper should end with limitations and avenues for future research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is good. Minor editing is required (e.g. "production of products").

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. I corrected the paper according to your advice. Editing of English was performed by colleague who is fluent in English.

 

Regards,

Dragana Nišić (corresponding author)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction includes a significant part of the literature review.

Answer: We agree. That’s why we shortened Introduction and the part with description of e-waste management system in general moved to a separate chapter No. 2.

I recommend the authors to streamline it, focusing on:

1) their main research question/objective;

2) how are they going to answer their research question;

3) why is it important for an international reader;

4) their contribution to the literature and practice.

Answer: We agree. At the end of Introduction, we gave the explanation of the main research questions and how are we going to answer them. Also, one paragraph at the end of Introduction about importance for an international readers and contribution to the literature and practice was added.

The use of PRISMA methodology is appropriate. The authors should explain better the exclusion of articles, because they started with quite a large number of articles and ended up with only ten. For instance, why were the articles unavailable? Also, weren't there papers included both in Clarivate and Scopus? Now, I see that they are added up.

Answer: We agree, and we explained better the exclusion of the articles. Section "2.1. Selection of papers" includes a brief explanation of the exclusion criteria for papers.
In the literature search, keywords could appear anywhere in a paper, including in the literature review. For papers identified through a database search, keywords might be present in the titles of journals, conferences, and referenced works, even if they do not appear in the paper's main text. This led to a significant number of irrelevant papers, which were subsequently excluded from the research.
Unavailable papers were excluded if they were not open access or if we did not have institutional access to them without an additional fee. Search results from Scopus and the Web of Science databases were combined, with only four references overlapping.

My biggest concern is that the authors should address an international audience. As such, they should state how their study based in Serbia can be generalised for other countries, with different regulations and culture.

Answer: The answer to this question is already given in the proposed aim in Introduction: “…By understanding Serbia's approach to e-waste management, with an overview of all obstacles in the system, international companies which are trading in Serbia can improve their strategies for responsible e-waste management. The detailed description of the current state of the e-waste management in Serbia will give recommendations for efficiency, policy, infrastructure, education and technology improvements. The case study of using robots in the e-waste separation process will be based on a particular case of company E-Reciklaža as a representative of the industry, but similar solutions can be applied to all e-waste recycling centers in Serbia with similar conclusions and impact. Other companies and countries that are dealing with similar problems can learn from Serbia’s case.”

The conclusions should emphasize the contribution of the paper. The authors should go back to the literature and state what diferentiates them. Also, the paper should end with limitations and avenues for future research.

Answer:  We agree. Answer to this question already exists in the Conclusion, but we added one more bullet with explanation, according to your suggestion. One paragraph in the Conclusion was added about limitations and avenues for future research.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the challenges in e-waste management in Serbia and explores the potential of using robots for waste separation. The paper includes a literature review of robotic technologies for e-waste separation,  an examination of the current e-waste management situation in Serbia, and a case study on the possibility of using robots in e-waste separation in a specific recycling plant in Serbia.

However, the paper still has the following problems:

 

Can the authors provide more specific details on the technical requirements and proposed solutions for implementing robotic waste separation in the case study recycling plant in Serbia?

 

How do the authors plan to address the potential challenges and limitations associated with the proposed robotic waste separation method in real-world implementation?

 

Could the authors elaborate on the potential economic and environmental impacts of implementing robotic waste separation in e-waste management in Serbia?

 

What are the possibilities of using robots for automated separation in e-waste management in Serbia?

What is the impact of this approach on improving recycling efficiency and reducing the intensity of workers' labor?

 

What is the current situation of e-waste management in Serbia?

What are the reasons for the country's failure to meet the recycling rate targets set by Europe?

Has Serbia taken any measures to coordinate with European targets?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English needs to be improved by correcting tense and grammatical errors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. I corrected the paper according to your advice. Editing of English was performed by colleague who is fluent in English.

 

Regards,

Dragana Nišić (corresponding author)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the challenges in e-waste management in Serbia and explores the potential of using robots for waste separation. The paper includes a literature review of robotic technologies for e-waste separation,  an examination of the current e-waste management situation in Serbia, and a case study on the possibility of using robots in e-waste separation in a specific recycling plant in Serbia.

However, the paper still has the following problems:

Can the authors provide more specific details on the technical requirements and proposed solutions for implementing robotic waste separation in the case study recycling plant in Serbia?

Answer: Thank you for your comment. The technical requirements set by the company were not explicitly given when it comes to the specifics of the realization, but rather as goals related to the improvements in their production/processing. These requirements were increase to at least 95% of the purity for the shredded Al and increase of at least 10% for the amount of extracted non-ferrous, non-Al metals (copper, brass, zinc). This information was included in form of a section in 5.3, and later used for calculation of the economic benefits to the company.

How do the authors plan to address the potential challenges and limitations associated with the proposed robotic waste separation method in real-world implementation?

Answer: The real-world implementation always brings its challenges with it, but it was on our mind from the start. We understand your points that certain aspects related to the real-world application were a bit scattered across the section 5.3 due to the fact that certain realization aspects were mentioned in sections where they would pose a challenge. As a response to your comments, we have further elaborated the technical aspects of the proposed solution with regards to the robot properties related to the layout and environment, gripper choice and cleaning solutions. Additionally, at the start of the section 5.3, we have added additional explanations related to the section of the process in which we can introduce alterations, and explained our considerations.

Could the authors elaborate on the potential economic and environmental impacts of implementing robotic waste separation in e-waste management in Serbia?

Answer: Very good point. Regarding the economic impact, we have included 2 sections related to the 2 main aspects in which solution provides additional yields to the company. Initially, we chose to skip them since the main motivation for the analysis was the improvement of the working conditions for workers and improvement of quality-related performance, and because all financial information would be country-specific. However, we have included the additional revenue for the company and the reasoning behind the calculations. Regarding the environmental impact, we have included an entire section dedicated exclusively to it, as well as some additional information in 5.3. It was indeed an aspect which deserved more attention.

What are the possibilities of using robots for automated separation in e-waste management in Serbia?.

Answer: There are 5 recycling centers for e-waste in Serbia, as it was previously mentioned. Within them, the solution can easily be implemented without any substantial modification, as the recycling process is very similar. These conclusions are also mentioned in the paper now, in the introduction section.

What is the impact of this approach on improving recycling efficiency and reducing the intensity of workers' labor?

Answer: The main impact on the worker’s well-being is related to the reduction of workers engaged on this part of production, since it is performed in non-ergonomic, long-term hazardous environment, which is tedious and has negative effects on the workers’ health. Although this was a primary concern to begin with, the benefits for the workers are now updated and further elaborated in 5.3. The optimal solution, which includes reassignment of all workers to other tasks

What is the current situation of e-waste management in Serbia?

Answer: Detailed description is given in the chapter 4.

 

What are the reasons for the country's failure to meet the recycling rate targets set by Europe?

Answer: Detailed description is given in the chapter 4.1 and 4.1.2.

 

Has Serbia taken any measures to coordinate with European targets?

Answer: Not so far, that’s why we gave proposal for potential solutions in the chapter 4.1.4.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with one of the important topics of our days, e-waste recycling. Consumerist society generates a lot of e-waste, more than 50 million tons each year. The main problem of this waste is the toxicity given by components like lead, cadmium, beryllium, thus generating serious health and environmental issues.

  E-waste recycling is more complicated than conventional waste.  Firstly, it is necessary to sort the waste, then disassemble the product into components. The hazardous components must be removed before shredding into small parts.

One of the main problems of recycling electronics is that the devices are not designed to be recycled. Hence the disassembling process requires manual working.

 

The paper presents the situation of e-waste recycling in Serbia. As mentioned in the paper, the current rate of recycling is very low. The main issues are lack of proper legislation, the lack of infrastructure necessary for this process and the and the insufficient environmental awareness of citizens.

An interesting solution is proposed to modernize one of e-waste recycling centers by introducing the cobots to replace some of the activities conducted by human workers.

 

Some issues must be fixed:

Line 234: change to  “there are” instead of “are there”.

Use the same font for the references, some are bold. Remove the underline for links and for doi.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. I corrected the paper according to your advice. Editing of English was performed by colleague who is fluent in English.

 

Regards,

Dragana Nišić (corresponding author)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with one of the important topics of our days, e-waste recycling. Consumerist society generates a lot of e-waste, more than 50 million tons each year. The main problem of this waste is the toxicity given by components like lead, cadmium, beryllium, thus generating serious health and environmental issues.

E-waste recycling is more complicated than conventional waste.  Firstly, it is necessary to sort the waste, then disassemble the product into components. The hazardous components must be removed before shredding into small parts.

One of the main problems of recycling electronics is that the devices are not designed to be recycled. Hence the disassembling process requires manual working.

The paper presents the situation of e-waste recycling in Serbia. As mentioned in the paper, the current rate of recycling is very low. The main issues are lack of proper legislation, the lack of infrastructure necessary for this process and the and the insufficient environmental awareness of citizens.

An interesting solution is proposed to modernize one of e-waste recycling centers by introducing the cobots to replace some of the activities conducted by human workers.

Some issues must be fixed:

Line 234: change to  “there are” instead of “are there”.

Answer: Changed.

Use the same font for the references, some are bold. Remove the underline for links and for doi.

Answer: Fixed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded point-for-point to the reviewers' concerns and revised the article. I have no further comments.