Inorganic Waste Management in Greenhouse Agriculture in Almeria (SE Spain): Towards a Circular System in Intensive Horticultural Production
, Carmen Rocío Rodríguez-Pleguezuelo 1, Fátima Rojas-Serrano 1, Carlos Parra-López 1, Salvador Parra-Gómez 2, Maria del Carmen García-García 3, Rosana García-Collado 4, Mariana Beatriz Lorbach-Kelle 5 and Trinidad Manrique-Gordillo 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments
The topic fits very well the scope of Sustainability. The manuscript is written in proper English without typos and contains sufficient literature. The study highlights the efforts of the intensive greenhouse horticulture to reach a circular system by closing the loop with inorganic waste in Almeria, Spain. The authors introduced REINWASTE project as an attempt to find solutions regarding inorganic waste management. In order to propose solutions authors interviewed a panel of 27 experts with expertise in different areas, from intensive horticulture, plastics and other materials used in greenhouse horticulture to waste management and recycling processes. Finally, the authors proposed a list of Best Available Techniques for the management of inorganic residues of greenhouses in Almeria, Spain. Therefore, my recommendation is to accept the manuscript after minor revision.
Results and discussion:
Section 3.1. analysing legal framework is too excessive and can be shortened.
In Section 3.4. where potential solutions are proposed authors can add a description, 1 to 2 lines, for each solution.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
We would like to thank very much reviewer 1 for his comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript and make it more easily to handle for the reader.
Below please you can find our response to all your comments point by point:
Overall comments:
Point 1: “Section 3.1. Analysing legal framework is too excessive and can be shortened”
Response 1: Thank you again for this suggestion, we agree with reviewer 1 that legal framework explanation is indeed extensive. Thus, to shorten it, some paragraphs which are not so relevant for the development of this section have been deleted in the new version (track changes activated). In this sense, the detailed explanation of the measures from the implementation package of the European Commission adopted about circular economy has been eliminated in the new version (see lines from 252 to 263 of the original manuscript).
Furthermore, the sub-section number 5 called “others” has been removed from this section since these regulations are clearly exposed in Figure 2 (both Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament on classification, labeling and packaging of substances and mixtures). The previous removed text corresponds to lines 323-332 of the original manuscript (track changes activated).
Point 2: “In Section 3.4. where potential solutions are proposed authors can add a description, 1 to 2 lines, for each solution”
Response 2: Thank you very much for this comment. We agree with reviewer 1 suggestions. For that, a general short explanation for each potential solution has been added, which would be helpful for sustainability review readers.
Please see the new version of the manuscript for the added information (track changes activated).
Thank you again for your dedication and revision.
Sincerely yours,
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I found Your article very interesting and hope it will be used as a good basis for increasing the sustainability of horticulture, especially greenhouse production.
All coments and corrections are inserted in text.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
We thank very much the kind appreciation of Reviewer 2 for the paper and his comments about the interest and the impact of findings to increase the sustainability of horticulture, generally and the greenhouse production, particularly. All his few suggestions have been included in the new version. Please see line 25-26 from the “Abstract” section; line 139 from “Materials and methods” and line 406 from “Results and discussion” section. In all corrections, track changes are activated in the new manuscript.
Thank you once again for your dedication and revision.
Sincerely yours,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
