Determination of the Least Impactful Municipal Solid Waste Management Option in Harare, Zimbabwe

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have stated about the LCA and LCIA and also their boundaries. Things missing were the boundary charts in form of a flow chart, this would enhance the visibility of the paper.

Author Response

Point-by-point response to the comments made by the referee(s) and documentation of any changes made to the original manuscript

Documentation of any changes made to the original manuscript

Figure 2 has been removed to address copyright issues since it did not serve much purpose considering that MSW had been defined according to its sources in text thus the what was contained in the Figure was mere repetition. Reference [1] regarding the adopted definition of MSW as the waste managed by local authorities or their hired agents has been added on the statement Consequently, in Zimbabwe, local authorities are mandated to manage such MSW on line 44. We have added the ultimate objective of using LCA methods to assess the six developed municipal solid waste management options by adding” to determine the least impactful option” at the end of the first sentence of the abstract. We also added a sentence on the practical significance of the study, “The findings will aid the development of future MSWM systems in Harare” as the second sentence the study. The introduction has been divided as recommended by the third reviewer with four sections 1. 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 inserted after the second paragraph of the original reviewed manuscript. A new Figure 2 has been inserted proving the system boundary as recommended by the first reviewer. Another new Figure now Figure 3 has been inserted providing databases navigation pathways on the SimaPro model platform to give detailed description of the methodological input output system. A detailed description of the methodology and the corresponding procedure were provided from line 356 to 382 and the inserted now Figure 3. Originally Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 have become Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively A discussion section has been inserted as recommended by the third reviewer running from. Probable uses and other recommendations for the study have been added in the conclusions as recommended by the third reviewer.

Point-by-point response to the comments made by the Reviewer

Reviewer 1: Comments to the Authors and Authors’ responses

Comment 1:  The authors have stated about the LCA and LCIA and also their boundaries. Things missing were the boundary charts in form of a flowchart, this would enhance the visibility of the paper.

Responses

The authors have put the LCA system boundary under consideration and the corresponding life cycle stages (processes) combinations under different scenarios as Figure 2 between lines 366 and 370.

[1]          EMA, "Environmental Management Agency Statutory Instrument 10 of 2007: Environmental Management (Hazardous waste management) Regulations, 2007 " in SI10 of 2007 Zimbabwe, 2007.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is very interesting and should be published.  The reviewer has, however, some comments to the authors as under.  Please consider them.

 

 

English must be polished by a native speaker. In Table 1, it should be “Harare” not “Harare urban” because it is just “Harere” in the table2 after Table 1. Unify the expression. Figure 2 is not clear and must be revised. What is the meaning of the arrows and the numbers in them.  What is “actor?” On the line 158, it is not “In Zimbabwe and Harare” but “In Harare, Zimbabwe.” Harare is a area name and Zimbabwe is a country name. In Table 3, the total percentage for Harare is 91 and that for Bulawayo is 108. Please explain them.  Where are Bulawayo and Chinhoyi? On the line 219, “Incineration Plant” should be “Incineration plant.” On the line 236, “Objective of the study” appeared here is awkward. The authors must explain the model equations for LCA and LCIA, then the readers understand the results.

Author Response

Documentation of any changes made to the original manuscript

Figure 2 has been removed to address copyright issues since it did not serve much purpose considering that MSW had been defined according to its sources in text thus the what was contained in the Figure was mere repetition. Reference [1] regarding the adopted definition of MSW as the waste managed by local authorities or their hired agents has been added on the statement Consequently, in Zimbabwe, local authorities are mandated to manage such MSW on line 44. We have added the ultimate objective of using LCA methods to assess the six developed municipal solid waste management options by adding” to determine the least impactful option” at the end of the first sentence of the abstract. We also added a sentence on the practical significance of the study, “The findings will aid the development of future MSWM systems in Harare” as the second sentence the study. The introduction has been divided as recommended by the third reviewer with four sections 1. 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 inserted after the second paragraph of the original reviewed manuscript. A new Figure 2 has been inserted proving the system boundary as recommended by the first reviewer. Another new Figure now Figure 3 has been inserted providing databases navigation pathways on the SimaPro model platform to give detailed description of the methodological input output system. A detailed description of the methodology and the corresponding procedure were provided from line 356 to 382 and the inserted now Figure 3. Originally Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 have become Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively A discussion section has been inserted as recommended by the third reviewer running from. Probable uses and other recommendations for the study have been added in the conclusions as recommended by the third reviewer.

Point-by-point response to the comments made by the Reviewer

Reviewer 2: Comments to the Authors and Authors’ responses

General comment: This paper is very interesting and should be published.  The reviewer has, however, some comments to the authors as under.  Please consider them.

Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Responses to reviewer’s comments are provided below.

Comment 1:  English must be polished by a native speaker.

 

Response:  We have made effort to polish the English in the manuscript.

 

Comment 2:  In Table 1, it should be “Harare” not “Harare urban” because it is just “Harere” in the table2 after Table 1. Unify the expression.

Response:  This has been corrected to unify the expression as recommended.

 

Comment 2:  Figure 2 is not clear and must be revised. What is the meaning of the arrows and the numbers in them.  What is “actor?”

Response:  Figure 2 has been removed from the manuscript as it was an unnecessary repetition of defining MSW which had been explained in the text.

 

Comment 3:  On the line 158, it is not “In Zimbabwe and Harare” but “In Harare, Zimbabwe.” Harare is a area name and Zimbabwe is a country name.

 

Response:  This has been corrected and now reads, “In Harare, Zimbabwe, quality and reliable MSW data on waste generation, characteristics and composition necessary for LCA that could inform effective planning for sustainable MSW management is unavailable” on line 153.

 

Comment 4:  In Table 3, the total percentage for Harare is 91 and that for Bulawayo is 108. Please explain them.  Where are Bulawayo and Chinhoyi?

 

Response:  The data for Harare was derived from the literature studies shown in Table 1 below. The 10% deficit for Harare data on Table 3 is other waste types which had been omitted the same applies to 1% omitted for Harare. Overally the other waste types were eliminated since taking an average of 10, 1 and 0 was concluded to be unjustifiable. The Bulawayo figure of 108 was a result of data entry error of 4 and 13% for metals and paper respectively instead of 3 and 7% respectively. Generally the five waste fractions constitutes MSW in Harare [1]. Harare is the second largest city of Zimbabwe located in the western part of the country whose economic status and lifestyles are almost the same as in Harare. Chinhoyi is an urban town located 90km northwest of Harare City. The inclusion of Chinhoyi and Bulawayo data sources was to also bring regionalization in the LCA study results at a national level.

 

Table 1: Harare MSW data sources

	Study from which the Harare figures used to calculate the average estimate
Waste type	EMA, 2011 [2, 3]		EMA, 2016 [4]	Makarichi, 2017 [5]	Nyanzou and Steven 2014 [6]	Derived average.
	Harare Composition	Epworth composition	Harare, Chitungwiza and Epworth, 2016	Harare, Chitungwiza and Epworth, 2017	Budiriro, 2014
Organic	44	42	36	38	39	40
Plastic	37	31	17	27	16	26
Metals	5	15	6	2	0	7
Paper	10	12	23	7	22	15
Glass	3	2	2	2	3	2
Other	1	3	18	25	21	10
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100

 

Comment 5:  On the line 219, Incineration Plant” should be “Incineration plant.

 

Response:  This was corrected as recommended now on line 213.

 

Comment 6:  On the line 236, “Objective of the study” appeared here is awkward.

 

Response: The terminology should have read goal and scope instead of objective of the study.

 

Comment 7: The authors must explain the model equations for LCA and LCIA, then the readers understand the results.

 

Response:  

A detailed description of the methodology and the corresponding procedure were provided from line 356 to 382 and the inserted now Figure 3. We also added the Ecoinvent databases pathways under Figure 3 and the associated inputs that were used for the LCA under this new section 2.6.3. The derivation of characterisation factors for the model impact categories was added under section 2.6.4 together with the general equation 1 for midpoint to endpoint characterisation factors derivation. The characterisation factors because they are embedded in the software model, we provided references [7, 8] which gives the procedures under which characterisation factors were derived for each and every damage category serve for fossil resource scarcity which had limited information on the cause effect pathway.

 

References

[1]          EMA, "Environmental Management Agency Statutory Instrument 10 of 2007: Environmental Management (Hazardous waste management) Regulations, 2007 " in SI10 of 2007 Zimbabwe, 2007.

[2]          GoZ, "Zimbabwe's integrated solid waste management plan,"  Harare: Government of Zimbabwe, Environmental Management Agency, Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe, 2014, pp. 1 - 98.

[3]          D. Tirivanhu and S. Feresu, "A Situational Analysis of Solid Waste Management in Zimbabwe’s Urban Centres.,"  Harare: Institute of Environment Studies, University of Zimbabwe, 2013, pp. 1 - 153.

[4]          EMA, "Waste generation and management in Harare, Zimbabwe: Residential areas, commercial areas and schools. ,"  Harare: Unpublished internal report, Environmental Management Agency, 2016.

[5]          L. Makarichi, R. Kan, W. Jutidamrongphan, and K. A. Techato, "Suitability of municipal solid waste in African cities for thermochemical waste-to-energy conversion: The case of Harare Metropolitan City, Zimbabwe.," Waste Management & Research, vol. 37, pp. 83 - 94, 2019.

[6]          P. Nyanzou and J. Steven, "Solid waste management practices in high density suburbs of Zimbabwe: a focus on Budiriro 3, Harare " The Dyke, vol. 8, pp. 17 - 54, 2014.

[7]          M. A. Huijbregts, Z. J. Steinmann, P. M. Elshout, G. Stam, F. Verones, M. Vieira, M. Zijp, A. Hollander, and R. van Zelm, "ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level," The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 22, pp. 138 - 147, 2017.

[8]          M. A. J. Huijbregts, Z. J. N. Steinmann, P. M. F. Elshout, G. Stam, F. Verones, M. D. M. Vieira, A. Hollander, M. Zijp, and R. Van Zelm, " ReCiPe 2016: A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level Report I: Characterization. RIVM Report 2016-0104. http://www.rivm.nl/en/Topics/L/Life_Cycle_Assessment_LCA/Downloads/Documents_ReCiPe2017/Report_ReCiPe_Update_2017,"  2016.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

My comments and recommendations on the items are as follows:

Title: I recommend to clarify the purpose of the article in the title - the choice of the best option for the disposal of municipal solid waste, since the options are not just considered, but analyzed with the intention of making recommendations to the governance structures. For example, “Comparative evaluation of solid utility waste management options in Harare, Zimbabwe.”

Abstract: in my opinion, in addition to the information given in the annotation, it is necessary to show the relevance and practical significance of the study.

INTRODUCTION: I recommend dividing the given extensive material on the international situation and on the problem of solid waste accumulation in the territory in Zimbabwe into two parts - Introduction and Theoretical part. In the introduction, it is better to insert information on the global situation and the situation in developing countries. In the theoretical part, it is better to consider municipal solid waste management specifically in Zimbabwe. This begs the question: have similar studies been conducted in Zimbabwe or other African countries?

I recommend placing information on the use of the LCA methodology in specific sources (lines 109-114) in the Materials and Methods, with a more detailed description of the applied methodology. In the Discussion, it is also desirable to indicate what exactly gave the experience of using LCA in other countries mentioned by the authors.

THEORY: No information

DATA AND METHODS: I believe that the division of this item into numerous subparagraphs (in particular 2.5.1-2.5.5 and 2.6.1.-2.6.5) is not sufficiently substantiated and they can be combined. In addition, for a general understanding of the study, it is necessary to describe in detail the methodology used. I recommend not only to describe it, but also to show the procedure for use.

In line 118, you need to change the numeral from 2,133.802 to 2,133,802.

In line 201, please decipher the indicator "tkm".

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: to improve perception I would recommend to increase the font of figures 3-4.

In the Introduction, the authors identify very interesting research objectives. However, the answers to the questions raised in the Discussion are not given clearly enough. I would like to see more references to sources, a more specific explanation of the research results and, most importantly, more extensive information about similar studies (p. 109-110) in other countries and the experience gained from them. An indication of the specific possibilities for applying the results would be a good conclusion to the study. 

I think that the authors did enough job in the paper but I also think that the revision of the paper could make it more competitive. I recomment major revision.

 

I think that the authors have done serious work on the study of the stated topic, which has good potential for development with the help of Resources. To make this work more competitive, it requires further elaboration. In this regard, I recommend a serious revision.

Author Response

Documentation of any changes made to the original manuscript

Figure 2 has been removed to address copyright issues since it did not serve much purpose considering that MSW had been defined according to its sources in text thus the what was contained in the Figure was mere repetition. Reference [1] regarding the adopted definition of MSW as the waste managed by local authorities or their hired agents has been added on the statement Consequently, in Zimbabwe, local authorities are mandated to manage such MSW on line 44. We have added the ultimate objective of using LCA methods to assess the six developed municipal solid waste management options by adding” to determine the least impactful option” at the end of the first sentence of the abstract. We also added a sentence on the practical significance of the study, “The findings will aid the development of future MSWM systems in Harare” as the second sentence the study. The introduction has been divided as recommended by the third reviewer with four sections 1. 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 inserted after the second paragraph of the original reviewed manuscript. A new Figure 2 has been inserted proving the system boundary as recommended by the first reviewer. Another new Figure now Figure 3 has been inserted providing databases navigation pathways on the SimaPro model platform to give detailed description of the methodological input output system. A detailed description of the methodology and the corresponding procedure were provided from line 356 to 382 and the inserted now Figure 3. Originally Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 have become Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively A discussion section has been inserted as recommended by the third reviewer running from. Probable uses and other recommendations for the study have been added in the conclusions as recommended by the third reviewer.

Point-by-point response to the comments made by the Reviewer

Reviewer 3: Comments to the Authors and Authors’ responses

General comment: I think that the authors did enough job in the paper but I also think that the revision of the paper could make it more competitive. I recomment major revision. I think that the authors have done serious work on the study of the stated topic, which has good potential for development with the help of Resources. To make this work more competitive, it requires further elaboration. In this regard, I recommend a serious revision. My comments and recommendations on the items are as follows:

Response

We thank the reviewer for the time and effort spent in reviewing our manuscripts. Comment and recommendations specific responses are provided below.

Comment 1: Title: I recommend to clarify the purpose of the article in the title - the choice of the best option for the disposal of municipal solid waste, since the options are not just considered, but analyzed with the intention of making recommendations to the governance structures. For example, “Comparative evaluation of solid utility waste management options in Harare, Zimbabwe.”

Response

The authors had made the same observation and made a proposed title change which was indicated in the cover letter submitted after addressing the pre review comments from the editor as we like the reviewer felt and observed that the original title was misleading and not clearly capturing the manuscript objectives. The proposed new title is “Determination of least impactful municipal solid waste management option in Harare, Zimbabwe”. We think the new title addresses the inadequacies of the original title. However, if the new title is still felt inadequate we are flexible to adjust it. 

Comment 2: Abstract: in my opinion, in addition to the information given in the annotation, it is necessary to show the relevance and practical significance of the study.

Response

The abstract words limited us to provide such critical information. However we have managed to add the objective of using LCA methods to assess the six developed municipal solid waste management options by adding, ”to determine the least impactful option” at the end of the first sentence of the abstract. We also added a sentence on the practical significance of the study, “The findings will aid the development of future MSWM systems in Harare” as the second sentence the study.

Comment 3: INTRODUCTION: I recommend dividing the given extensive material on the international situation and on the problem of solid waste accumulation in the territory in Zimbabwe into two parts - Introduction and Theoretical part. In the introduction, it is better to insert information on the global situation and the situation in developing countries. In the theoretical part, it is better to consider municipal solid waste management specifically in Zimbabwe. This begs the question: have similar studies been conducted in Zimbabwe or other African countries?

I recommend placing information on the use of the LCA methodology in specific sources (lines 109-114) in the Materials and Methods, with a more detailed description of the applied methodology. In the Discussion, it is also desirable to indicate what exactly gave the experience of using LCA in other countries mentioned by the authors.

Response

The introduction has been divided as recommended with four sections 1.1. 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 inserted after the second paragraph of the original reviewed manuscript. Section 1.1 provided developments in MSW management in the developed world while section 1.2 provided developments in MSW management in developing nations. Section 1.2 comprises of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the original reviewed manuscript with additional content inserted as recommended. Section 1.3 provides the status of MSW management in Zimbabwe and specifically in Harare comprising of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the reviewed manuscript. Section 1.4 comprise of paragraph 5 in the original reviewed manuscript together with other supporting content providing detailed description of LCA application in MSW management and the recent reviews indicating only two studies of such nature have been undertaken in Africa (both having been undertaken in Nigeria).This addresses the question on whether similar studies have been undertaken in Zimbabwe or other African countries. This question was partly answered in the statement “To date no or little studies have been carried out focusing on determining the most probable integrated MSW management option with the least environmental impacts for Harare” that is on paragraph 7 of the original reviewed manuscript.

The section which was previously on lines 108 – 114 (paragraph 8 of the original reviewed manuscript) has been moved to section 2.6 Life Cycle Assessment as recommended and edited to include the two studies carried out in Nigeria to read, “Several studies have been carried out using LCA to assess different MSW management scenarios in a number of countries namely Spain [1-3], Italy [4-6], China [7, 8], Brazil [9], Australia [10], Indonesia [11], Canada [12], United States of America [13], Lithuania [14] and Nigeria [15, 16] to mention just but a few. LCA was therefore applied to assess the human health, acidification, eutrophication and global warming potential of the various MSW management scenarios in Harare and its domitory towns of Chitungwiza, Epworth, Norton and Ruwa”,.

Comment 4: THEORY: No information

Response

The theory has been added under the sections four sections 1.1. 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4

Comment 5: DATA AND METHODS: I believe that the division of this item into numerous subparagraphs (in particular 2.5.1-2.5.5 and 2.6.1.-2.6.5) is not sufficiently substantiated and they can be combined. In addition, for a general understanding of the study, it is necessary to describe in detail the methodology used. I recommend not only to describe it, but also to show the procedure for use.

In line 118, you need to change the numeral from 2,133.802 to 2,133,802.

In line 201, please decipher the indicator "tkm".

Response

We have combined sections 2.5.1 – 2.5.5 as recommended. On sections 2.6.1 – 2.6.5 we felt to put the sections separately to clearly indicate the LCA stages as is the norm with most of the LCA studies. We have however, combined 2.6.3 and 2.6.4 to become 2.6.3 with the heading LCA functional unit and software model. A detailed description of the methodology and the corresponding procedure were provided from line 356 to 382 and the inserted now Figure 3. We also added the Ecoinvent databases pathways under Figure 3 and the associated inputs that were used for the LCA under this new section 2.6.3. The derivation of characterisation factors for the model impact categories was added under section 2.6.4 together with the general equation 1 for midpoint to endpoint characterisation factors derivation. The characterisation factors because they are embedded in the software model, we provided references [17, 18] which gives the procedures under which characterisation factors were derived for each and every damage category serve for fossil resource scarcity which had limited information on the cause effect pathway. tkm is the product of distance to be travelled by the MSW to the treatment facility and the weight of the MSW transported and the bracketed statement has been inserted after tkm “product of distance to be travelled by the MSW to the treatment facility and the weight of the MSW transported” to define it in the manuscript text. The numeral 2,133.802 has been changed to 2,133,802 as recommended.

Comment 6: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: to improve perception I would recommend to increase the font of figures 3-4.

Response

We have increased font for Figures 3 – 4 including Figure 5 and 6 in the original reviewed manuscripts as recommended. These figures are now Figures 4 – 7.

Comment 7: In the Introduction, the authors identify very interesting research objectives. However, the answers to the questions raised in the Discussion are not given clearly enough. I would like to see more references to sources, a more specific explanation of the research results and, most importantly, more extensive information about similar studies (p. 109-110) in other countries and the experience gained from them. An indication of the specific possibilities for applying the results would be a good conclusion to the study. 

Response

We provided a comprehensive discussion of the results as recommended under the conclusions and recommendations has been made discussing the study results and comparing them with findings from other studies and reviews that have been made on MSWM based LCA studies. Broad recommendations for possible implementation of the study findings as well as further studies that seek to assess economic affordability, social acceptability, renewable energy and job creation potential of the LCA identified integrated MSWM system with least environmental impact potentials which are necessary ingredients for the possible practical implementation of the least impactful MSW management option.

References

[1]          Y. Fernández-Nava, R. J.D, J. Rodríguez-Iglesias, L. Castrillón, and E. Marañón, "Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of different municipal solid waste management options: A case study of Asturias (Spain)," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 2014, 2014.

[2]          L. P. Güereca, S. Gassó, J. M. Baldasano, and P. Jiménez-Guerrero, "Life cycle assessment of two biowaste management systems for Barcelona, Spain," Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 49, pp. 32-48, 2006.

[3]          C. Montejo, D. Tonini, M. C. Márquez, and T. F. Astrup, "Mechanical biological treatment: Performance and potentials. An LCA of 8 MBT plants including waste characterization," Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 128, 2013.

[4]          G. A. Blengini, M. Fantoni, M. Busto, G. Genon, and C. Zanetti, "Participatory approach, acceptability and transparency of waste Management LCAs: Case studies of Torino and Cuneo," Waste Management, vol. 32, pp. 1712-1721, 2012.

[5]          U. Arena, M. L. Mastellone, and F. Perugini, "The environmental performance of alternative solid waste management options: a life cycle assessment study," Chemical Engineering Journal vol. 96, 2003.

[6]          F. Cherubini, S. Bargigli, and S. Ulgiati, "Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste management strategies: Landfilling, sorting plant and incineration," Energy, vol. 34, pp. 2116 - 2123, 2009.

[7]          H. Han, J. L. Shude Li, and G. Quian, "Comparison of green-house gas emission reductions and landfill gas utilization between a landfill system and an incineration system," Waste Management & Research, vol. 28, pp. 315 - 321, 2010.

[8]          Q. Song, Z. Wang, and J. Li, "Environmental performance of municipal solid waste strategies based on LCA method: a case study of Macau," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.04, 2013.

[9]          M. R. Mendes, T. Aramaki, and K. Hanaki, "Comparison of the environmental impact of incineration and landfilling in Sao Paulo City as determined by LCA," Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 41, pp. 47-63, 2004.

[10]        S. Lundie and G. M. Peters, "Life cycle assessment of food waste management options," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 13, pp. 275 - 286, 2005.

[11]        M. Gunamantha and Sarto, "Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste treatment to energy options: Case study of Kartamantul region, Yogyakarta. ," Renewable Energy, vol. 41, pp. 277 - 284, 2012.

[12]        B. Assamoi and Y. Lawryshyn, " The environmental comparison of landfilling vs. incineration of MSW accounting for waste diversion," Waste management, vol. 32, pp. 1019 - 1030, 2012.

[13]        S. E. Vergara, A. Damgaard, and H. A., "Boundaries matter: Greenhouse gas emission reductions from alternative waste treatment strategies for California’s municipal solid waste," Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 57, pp. 87 - 97, 2011.

[14]        J. Miliute and J. Kazimieras Staniškis, "Application of life-cycle assessment in optimisation of municipal waste management systems: the case of Lithuania," Waste management, vol. 28, pp. 298 - 308, 2010.

[15]        F. O. Ogundipe and O. D. Jimoh, "Life Cycle Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Minna,  Niger State, Nigeria," International Journal of Environmental Research, vol. 9, pp. 1305 - 1314, 2015.

[16]        T. R. Ayodele, A. S. O. O. Ogunjuyigbe, and M. A. Alao, "Life cycle assessment of waste-to-energy (WtE) technologies for electricity generation using municipal solid waste in Nigeria," Applied Energy, vol. 201, pp. 200 - 218, 2017.

[17]        M. A. Huijbregts, Z. J. Steinmann, P. M. Elshout, G. Stam, F. Verones, M. Vieira, M. Zijp, A. Hollander, and R. van Zelm, "ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level," The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 22, pp. 138 - 147, 2017.

[18]        M. A. J. Huijbregts, Z. J. N. Steinmann, P. M. F. Elshout, G. Stam, F. Verones, M. D. M. Vieira, A. Hollander, M. Zijp, and R. Van Zelm, " ReCiPe 2016: A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level Report I: Characterization. RIVM Report 2016-0104. http://www.rivm.nl/en/Topics/L/Life_Cycle_Assessment_LCA/Downloads/Documents_ReCiPe2017/Report_ReCiPe_Update_2017,"  2016.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Editors,

I have no remarks on this manuscript

Best regards,

Dr. I. Plastinina