An Investigation into the Conversion of Non-Hazardous Medical Wastes into Biogas—A Case Study from the Health and Family Planning Sector in Bangladesh
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I read your paper “An Investigation of Biogas yield potential from Health and Family Planning Sector in Bangladesh: Context Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)”. Your paper present relevant technical results; however, is necessary to improve the scientific deepening, as I suggest below
1) It is necessary in the introduction to present the research gap to be explored in your study.
2) It is necessary develop systematic literature review, including Papers Sustainable Development Goals, as below.
Overcoming Barriers to the Implementation of Cleaner Production in Small Enterprises in the Mechanics Industry: Exploring Economic Gains and Contributions for Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability (Switzerland), 2022, 14(5), 2944
Cleaner Production in the textile industry and its relationship to sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 228, pp. 1514–1525
it is important to improve the scientific depth about realistic impact on waste management, based on the following Papers
Economic and Environmental Advantage Evaluation of the Reverse Logistic Implementation in the Supermarket Retail
An assessment of the environmental and economic benefits of implementing reverse logistics in the textured glass sector
Plan to Overcome Barriers to Reverse Logistics in Construction and Demolition Waste: Survey of the Construction Industry
3) In the introduction, it is also necessary to present the motivations of your study for theory, organizational practice and society related to cleaner production in footwear industry.
4) I suggest presenting the methodology demonstrating the step by step aiming at the replicability of the research by other researchers. Also, it is important to present at the beginning of the methodology the keywords, researched databases, selection process of articles from the systematic literature review.
5) The discussion process can be enriched through greater scientific in-depth. In addition to clarifying the contributions to theory and practice of their discoveries based in researches.
6) In the conclusion, describe what the conclusions are for theory, practice and society.
Author Response
1) It is necessary in the introduction to present the research gap to be explored in your study.
Introduction has been revised and some change has been made
2) It is necessary develop systematic literature review, including Papers Sustainable Development Goals, as below.
- Overcoming Barriers to the Implementation of Cleaner Production in Small Enterprises in the Mechanics Industry: Exploring Economic Gains and Contributions for Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability (Switzerland), 2022, 14(5), 2944
- Cleaner Production in the textile industry and its relationship to sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 228, pp. 1514–1525
it is important to improve the scientific depth about realistic impact on waste management, based on the following Papers
- Economic and Environmental Advantage Evaluation of the Reverse Logistic Implementation in the Supermarket Retail
- An assessment of the environmental and economic benefits of implementing reverse logistics in the textured glass sector
- Plan to Overcome Barriers to Reverse Logistics in Construction and Demolition Waste: Survey of the Construction Industry
Literature has been added from Journal “Sustainability” (Neto at. Al., 2022). Some modification / addition has been done.
3) In the introduction, it is also necessary to present the motivations of your study for theory, organizational practice and society related to cleaner production in footwear industry.
Few change / additions have been made based on these comments.
4) I suggest presenting the methodology demonstrating the step by step aiming at the replicability of the research by other researchers. Also, it is important to present at the beginning of the methodology the keywords, researched databases, selection process of articles from the systematic literature review.
In this study collected only few quantitative data from primary and some from secondary and relates with societal impact and sustainability therefore not a vigorous data analysis / database etc.
5) The discussion process can be enriched through greater scientific in-depth. In addition to clarifying the contributions to theory and practice of their discoveries based in researches.
In some extend critical discussion has been added as scientific in depth.
6) In the conclusion, describe what the conclusions are for theory, practice and society.
Has been revised
Reviewer 2 Report
It is necessary to review the entire manuscript and correct grammatical and spelling errors. There are many unclear and incorrect expressions and sentences (for example, the sentence in lines 56 and 57, etc.). Some of the mistakes in the text are: LAMB shouldn't be written as an abbreviation (Line 13); defenestration? (Line 19); they area? (Line 41); od (Line 60); is the abbreviation HCWM for Health Waste Management correct?; Furthermore. Hospital (Line 67); etc.
Based on the title of the paper and the introduction section, much more results and a more detailed assessment of the potential of biogas from Health and Family Planning Sector in Bangladesh are expected; I suggest modifying the title.
All tables and figures presented in the manuscript should be placed in the appropriate part of the manuscript, and it is necessary to explain what a particular figure/table represents, i.e., what its significance is for the manuscript itself. For example, is the 2nd and 3rd page of the manuscript the "right place" for tables 1 and 2 and for figure 2, and what does table 2 represent (how the data shown in the table are important for this research)… etc. In addition, it is necessary to improve the quality of the figures.
It is necessary to restructure the manuscript, separate the part of the text that belongs to the introduction section, the part that represents the methodology, add the results, and separate the part of the text that represents a discussion. A clearly written aim of the manuscript needs to be included. Certain sub-headings are redundant, and the text is unnecessarily separated into many sub-headings.
It is necessary to write the work methodology more clearly. In the methodology part, it is written how much waste is generated in the hospital, doesn't that data represent the result?
How was the data on the amount of waste obtained? What does the analyzed waste consist of? What about other waste? What is the significance of subchapter 2.4.1? When medical waste is used for biogas production, can digestate be used as a biofertilizer?
It is necessary to add the results of the work. Since it is written in the Methodology section that the paper provides a literature review of current waste management options used; and a survey of waste management practices conducted at a particular hospital, including an analysis of the waste composition, it is necessary to present these results clearly.
Explain in more detail and clearly how the data on biogas yield was obtained. The data in Table 3 are presented vaguely. The discussion of results must also be improved.
Author Response
It is necessary to review the entire manuscript and correct grammatical and spelling errors. There are many unclear and incorrect expressions and sentences (for example, the sentence in lines 56 and 57, etc.). Some of the mistakes in the text are: LAMB shouldn't be written as an abbreviation (Line 13); defenestration? (Line 19); they area? (Line 41); od (Line 60); is the abbreviation HCWM for Health Waste Management correct?; Furthermore. Hospital (Line 67); etc.
All has been noticed and corrected except LAMB. Actually, this hospital is known as LAMB hospital although its elaboration is - Lutheran Aid to Medicine (LAMB).
Based on the title of the paper and the introduction section, much more results and a more detailed assessment of the potential of biogas from Health and Family Planning Sector in Bangladesh are expected; I suggest modifying the title.
Few clarifications have been added.
All tables and figures presented in the manuscript should be placed in the appropriate part of the manuscript, and it is necessary to explain what a particular figure/table represents, i.e., what its significance is for the manuscript itself. For example, is the 2nd and 3rd page of the manuscript the "right place" for tables 1 and 2 and for figure 2, and what does table 2 represent (how the data shown in the table are important for this research)… etc. In addition, it is necessary to improve the quality of the figures.
All necessary action has been taken based on these comments.
It is necessary to restructure the manuscript, separate the part of the text that belongs to the introduction section, the part that represents the methodology, add the results, and separate the part of the text that represents a discussion. A clearly written aim of the manuscript needs to be included. Certain sub-headings are redundant, and the text is unnecessarily separated into many sub-headings.
Has been revised based on suggestion including aim of this study.
It is necessary to write the work methodology more clearly. In the methodology part, it is written how much waste is generated in the hospital, doesn't that data represent the result?
Has been noticed and revised according to instruction. A data has been transferred to results / discussion section from methodology.
How was the data on the amount of waste obtained? What does the analyzed waste consist of? What about other waste? What is the significance of subchapter 2.4.1? When medical waste is used for biogas production, can digestate be used as a biofertilizer?
Only some key data of waste and waste sources has been collected and then calculated and looked at the sustainability impact of hospital waste-based bioenergy. As this was emphasise on social justice, poverty, equality, food security and sustainable development goals, therefore quantitative data was limited.
It is necessary to add the results of the work. Since it is written in the Methodology section that the paper provides a literature review of current waste management options used; and a survey of waste management practices conducted at a particular hospital, including an analysis of the waste composition, it is necessary to present these results clearly.
Discussion of section 3 has been revised to Results and Discussion and some key results has been added.
Explain in more detail and clearly how the data on biogas yield was obtained. The data in Table 3 are presented vaguely. The discussion of results must also be improved.
Only the waste data was collected from LAMB authority as primary resources but the calculation of waste to biogas yield and its energy yield has been calculated / collected from secondary resources (Rahman et. al., 2017).
Reviewer 3 Report
1. In the abstract, the authors discussed the objective of the study but did not mention what is the motivation of the research. Further, the novelty of the study needs to be detailed and addressed in future work.
2. The introduction section needs to be split into multiple sections for better readability.
3. There is no strong reason provided in the article to select the LAMB hospital for justifying the biomass, and bioenergy of Bangladesh with the aspect of sustainability.
4. The methodology and the structure of the study are unclear the study, as it is difficult to understand the content discussed in the study.
5. As the authors have concluded that it is a review, there is a lack of detailed assessment before the conclusion section with limitations and opportunities for future work.
6. The findings, novelty, and significance of the study need to be highlighted in the conclusion section.
Author Response
- In the abstract, the authors discussed the objective of the study but did not mention what is the motivation of the research. Further, the novelty of the study needs to be detailed and addressed in future work.
Has been added in abstract section.
- The introduction section needs to be split into multiple sections for better readability.
A subtitle has been added and included some modification
- There is no strong reason provided in the article to select the LAMB hospital for justifying the biomass, and bioenergy of Bangladesh with the aspect of sustainability.
Agreed and a farther clarification has been provided in section 1.2
- The methodology and the structure of the study are unclear the study, as it is difficult to understand the content discussed in the study.
Has been added 2/3 sentences in methodology for further clarification.
- As the authors have concluded that it is a review, there is a lack of detailed assessment before the conclusion section with limitations and opportunities for future work.
A Section on Limitation and recommendation has been added before conclusion section.
- The findings, novelty, and significance of the study need to be highlighted in the conclusion section.
Has been added in conclusion.
Academic Editor Comments
Please check and correct the units used for energy throughout the manuscript. kW is the unit for power (energy/time) not for energy. If expressing energy, units should be changed from kW to kWh or to J (or MJ). Otherwise, if expressing power, the gas production should be in volume/time, not just volume.
Answer: Agreed and change has been made.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, Thank you for submitting your manuscript.
The paper is relevant to advance the state of the art.
I am pleased to inform with basis in my analysis you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication, being the final decision of the editor.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments / feedback on this manuscript,
Yes, I am in a process to final check of English and grammar etc.
With regards,
Corresponding Author (Dr K M Rahman)
Reviewer 3 Report
First of all, I appreciate the authors for the necessary changes in the article. However, some changes are not appropriate yet and are not satisfied.
1) The authors have split the introduction section, however, the introduction is very long and still concerns readability. In the introduction section, the authors are suggested to focus on the background, motivation, problem statement, and research gaps from the previous studies. Along with this, the sub-section from 1.2 and 1.3 need to be included as new sections as in section 2.
2. The limitations and opportunities for future work must be included in the conclusion. It should be removed before the conclusion section.
3. A figure need to be included in the article for illustrating the organization of the article.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments on this article. Based on your comments the following action has been done:
- A new section named “Background Research” has been added and two subsections has been changed as 2.1 and 2.2 from 1.2 and 1.3.
- Limitation and Recommendation for Future Work has been placed in conclusion section.
- I believe graphical abstract is not mandatory for this paper, and I have another article which has been published in Journal Processes and there is no graphical abstract, considering the time constrain I am not including a graphical abstract.
