A LifeCycle Analysis and Economic Cost Analysis of Corrugated Cardboard Box Reuse and Recycling in the United States

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study explores the life cycle assessment (LCA) of corrugated cardboard box (CCB) to estimate the carbon emissions when the CCB is reused instead of recycled or landfilled. In addition, the benefit-cost analysis and willingness to pay calculation for different scenarios are interesting. Below are some of my review comments on this manuscript.

 

Line 14:  The term “refusing” is not a common word. It does not normally mean converting the CCB into garbage intended for landfilling. It would be good if the authors replace the term “refusing” to “landfilling” or to a similar term throughout the manuscript.

 

Line 49:  Please correct the typo in “. this previous work”

 

Line 73:  Please correct the English error in “and how much would it cost to motivate.”

 

Line 87:  Please replace “is a process used to calculate” to “was used to calculate”. It would be good to write the Materials and Methods section in the Past Tense.

 

Line 127:  Please delete “It is also important to specify what is excluded from the scope of the study.” This is not needed.

 

Line 149:  Where are the sources for the data given in Table 1?

 

Table 1:  How did you allocate the carbon emissions to the co-products (turpentine and tall oil, sold power, etc.)? I don’t find “co-product allocation” discussion in the manuscript. How did you treat the wood ashes and coal ashes? Are these ashes considered as co-products or wastes in your LCA study? Please address these comments clearly in the manuscript.

 

Line 222:  Why did you choose to use the term “chapters” instead of “sections” in this journal manuscript?

 

Table 8:  Why did the authors use LCI database of France, Germany, and Europe instead of LCI data from the U.S. sources?

 

Lines 325-326:  Please note that the carbon emission saving calculation given in these lines are not correct.  The carbon savings per use should be calculated from the carbon emissions of “pulp-making operation” and “converting operation”, which occur before the “use phase”. Please re-calculate the carbon emission savings and update the corresponding data in the manuscript.

 

General comment:  Please compare your carbon emission data for CCB with the literature values.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper provides an interesting and comprehensive analysis of the potential carbon emissions and economic feasibility of reusing corrugated cardboard boxes (CCBs) in the United States as opposed to recycling or refusing them. The paper is well-structured and provides a thorough examination of the different phases of the product lifecycle, as well as a thorough analysis of the economics of the proposed “reuse” method. The authors use LifeCycle Assessment (LCA) to evaluate the carbon emissions in each phase of the product lifecycle and economic tools such as willingness to pay vs. marginal cost curves and benefit-cost analyses to evaluate the economic feasibility of the proposed method. The results of the paper indicate that the “reuse” method for CCBs is economically and environmentally feasible. The paper is well-written and provides a detailed analysis of the potential benefits of the proposed “reuse” method. The authors provide a clear and concise explanation of the methodology used to evaluate the economic and environmental feasibility of the proposed method. The paper also provides an insight into how analytics, economics, and LCA can be used to create a model that can be used for other products and processes. Overall, this paper provides a thorough and compelling analysis of the potential benefits of reusing CCBs and is a valuable contribution to the field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf