Next Article in Journal
Design and Multiobjective Optimization of Green Closed-Loop Manufacturing-Recycling Network Considering Raw Material Attribute
Next Article in Special Issue
Emerging Pollutants in Wastewater, Advanced Oxidation Processes as an Alternative Treatment and Perspectives
Previous Article in Journal
Quantitative Risk Analysis of Oil and Gas Fires and Explosions for FPSO Systems in China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Using Periphyton Assemblage and Water Quality Variables to Assess the Ecological Recovery of an Ecologically Engineered Wetland Affected by Acid Mine Drainage after a Dry Spell
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Circular Economy Indicators for the Assessment of Waste and By-Products from the Palm Oil Sector

Processes 2022, 10(5), 903; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10050903
by Pedro-Antonio Cárdenas Bejarano 1, Juan-Pablo Rodriguez-Miranda 1, Rayma Ireri Maldonado-Astudillo 2,*, Yanik Ixchel Maldonado-Astudillo 2,* and Ricardo Salazar 3,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Processes 2022, 10(5), 903; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10050903
Submission received: 31 March 2022 / Revised: 15 April 2022 / Accepted: 25 April 2022 / Published: 3 May 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript describes circular economy indicators for the assessment of waste and by-products from the palm oil sector. The manuscript is interesting in the process view point. However, the manuscript needs minor amendment before publication:

  1. Abstract - did not use abbreviation in the abstract i.e. RFF, EFB, HCRRS, CO
  2. Introduction - include any policies (world or national) that support the circular economy and relates with Sustainable Development Goals.
  3. Please check. some abbreviations not stated in the manuscript. i.e. CPO, POME, RSO etc..
  4. Material and methods: - justify, line 114- an interval of 5 years prior to the investigation (2015-2019)
  5. line 121 - provide reasons range of 25 years (2019-1994)
  6. Provide references/citation for equation used in the manuscript.
  7. Line 303 - which table
  8. Figure 1 - not clear
  9. Check caption for Figure 2, language for legend in Figure 2
  10. Check caption for Figure 3, language for legend in Figure 3
  11. Check caption for Figure 4, language for y-axis
  12. Page 27, 28, 29 - error, references not found
  13. Conclusion - too long, simplify maximum 2 paragraph
  14. Discussion - well-discussed with supporting references
  15. References - check style of writing references.. << n.o

Author Response

Dear Reviewers
I appreciate your observations and comments on the manuscript, which strengthen and improve the document as a whole.

Reviewer 1:
The manuscript describes circular economy indicators for the evaluation of residues and by-products of the palm oil sector. The manuscript is interesting from the process point of view. However, the manuscript needs minor modifications before publication:
a. Abstract: did not use abbreviations in the abstract, ie, RFF, EFB, HCRRS, CO. Answer: summary adjustment was made.
b. Introduction: Include any policies (global or national) that support the circular economy and relate to the Sustainable Development Goals. Answer: Adjustment of the introduction was made.
c. Please check. some abbreviations not indicated in the manuscript. i.e. CPO, POME, RSO, etc. Answer: adjustment was made.
d. Material and methods: - justify, line 114- an interval of 5 years prior to the investigation (2015-2019). Answer: adjustment was made.
e. and. line 121 - provide ratio range of 25 years (2019-1994). Answer: adjustment was made.
f. Please provide references/citations for the equation used in the manuscript. Answer: adjustment was made.
g. Line 303 - what a table. Answer: adjustment was made.
h. Figure 1 - not clear. Answer: adjustment was made.
i. Check the title of Figure 2, the language of the legend of Figure 2. Answer: adjustment was made.
J. Check the title of Figure 3, the language of the legend of Figure 3. Answer: adjustment was made.
k. Check Figure 4 title, y-axis language Page 27, 28, 29 - error, references not found. Answer: adjustment was made.
l. Conclusion - too long, simplifies maximum 2 paragraphs. Answer: adjustment was made.
m. Discussion - well discussed with supporting references. Answer: adjustment was made.
n. References - check the writing style of the references. Answer: adjustment was made.

Thank you
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

  1. The conclusion part is too long ….. I would like to briefly see the perspective of the researchers on this research in the conclusion section.
  2. The introduction section is just a general presentation of very basic information and does not approach the state of the art

Author Response

Dear Reviewers
I appreciate your observations and comments on the manuscript, which strengthen and improve the document as a whole.

Reviewer:
a. The conclusion part is too long. I'd like to briefly see the researchers' perspective on this research in the conclusion section. Answer: Adjustment of the conclusion was made.
b. The introduction section is just an overview presentation of very basic information and is nowhere near the state of the art. Answer: Adjustment of the introduction was made.

Thank you
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop