Energy Treatment of Solid Municipal Waste in Combination with Biomass by Decentralized Method with the Respect to the Negative Effects on the Environment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors investigated the co-combustion of biomass and municipal solid waste. The manuscript needs major revision before it can be considered for publishing.
(1) Abstract
Before an abbreviation (e.g. MSU, HM) can be used, the form of a word or phrase should be given first.
(2) Introduction
The introduction is poorly organized and major revision is required. For example, Line 36-37 is talking about the increasing concern on MSW, however, line 39-42 exhibits a significant decrease in MSW amount. The authors need to rationalize the paragraph. Municipal solid waste (MSW) showed up twice in Line 37 and line 55.
(3) Data in tables
The authors used a lot of “,” in numbers. Please use it in a proper way as it affects reading.
(4) Table 1
“Wood chips, pellets” was listed as a “Fuel”. What does it mean? What does “Boiler class 3” mean?
Table 2
Table 2 listed both NO, NO2 and NOx. What’s the difference between NO, NO2 and NOx (Is NOx a simple mixture of NO and NO2). What is “Temperature FT”?
Table 3
The N content of wood chips and MSW are 0.28% and 0.4%, respectively. However, after mixing, the 50/50 and 70/30 (I assumed the authors used biomass/MSW weight ratio here; the authors should clearly indicate the ratio is biomass/MSW or MSW/biomass) mixtures showed obvious higher values, i.e., 0.48% and 0.46%, respectively. The S content of 80/20 mixture is significantly lower than other mixtures. The authors need to explain what caused the deviation.
Table 4
Based on the humidity content and energy density of wood chips and MSW, the humidity and density of biomass/MSW mixtures are lower than expected. What caused the obvious deviation? What is “Emission factor tCO2/TJ”? In addition, “Density, kg/m3” should be “Density, kg/m3”. The authors should briefly discuss the data instead of simply listing the data.
(5) Figure 4, 5, and 6
The figures need to be improved. The figure captions need to be revised. The lines can be smoothed to guide eyes.
(6) Page 8, line 246-248
What do the authors mean “Due to the MSW content”?
(7) Page10, Table 5
The C, H and O content of biomass/MSW (80/20) are significantly higher than other mixtures and even the wood chips. The authors need to verify the validity of that group of data.
(8)
Page 10, line 276
Reference error
Page 10, line 284
Reference error
Page 11, line 291-292
Reference error
Author Response
Dear reviewer
First of all, we want to Thank You for Your time that You spend making a review and all professional comments.
The article has been revised, the abstract, introduction and conclusion sections were revised and expanded. (All changes were processed to satisfy the requirements of all reviewers) All changes in the article are highlighted by the Microsoft Word Revision so that they are identifiable. We also want to inform You that the process of MDPI English editing have been started.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors describe two type of wastes and their characterization is based on inorganic elemental analysis and organic compounds present in the waste. Moreover, they are focused on the determination of wood chips and MSW ration for an improvement in the operating parameters of the combustion process.
Nevertheless, the paper as presented can not be published. A lot of improvements must be implemented. It can be published in the aforementioned journal after MAJOR REVISION, and the authors have clarified/corrected and improved a series of issues. You can find them in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer
First of all, we want to Thank You for Your time that You spend making a review and all professional comments.
The article has been revised, the abstract, introduction and conclusion sections were revised and expanded. (All changes were processed to satisfy the requirements of all reviewers) All changes in the article are highlighted by the Microsoft Word Revision so that they are identifiable. We also want to inform You that the process of MDPI English editing have been started.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper by Rimar et al. attempts to determine the possibility and conditions of the combustion for the non-hazardous municipal waste in a decentralized manner. Such works are becoming increasingly important in the field of energy production using alternatives/waste valorization and therefore research on such works should be encouraged.
My overall impression of the paper is that it contains promising ideas. Obviously, the authors put a lot of work and effort into the work and also in writing this manuscript which I definitely would like to acknowledge here. I'm totally aware how much efforts are needed to get a paper written. However, the manuscript in its current form has significant points that need to be addressed prior to possible publication.
Abstract: The abstract summarizes the research, but needs to be reworked to be clearer and more precise. There is no data reported. I suggest listing values found rather than saying "less aggressive". On what basis? What is the big conclusion?
Introduction: The introduction needs to explain the benefits of this study and set up the story. The novel aspects no sufficiently treated in previous literature (even from the same research group) need to be emphasized.
Methods: A major flaw of this study is that the authors do not present crucial information concerning their employed methods and lack of meaningful analysis/interpretation of the results is noticeable. Origin, sampling and treatment of MSW are poorly described, leading to at best questionable usefulness of the presented data. Minimal analysis regarding seasonal variation, sampling frequency, discrepancies between distributions in different areas (spatial distribution) is provided and very little consideration of related work was provided, resulting in poor scientific quality. Authors should try to provide methodology in sufficient detail to allow reproducibility.
The paper appears to have been hastily finished. For instance,
- L.73-74. Please move the objective to Introduction section.
- L .277, L.284…… “Error! Reference source not found.”
- Section 3.3. L283/284. Arsenic and Antimony are not heavy metals but metalloids. Please revise text accordingly.
The conclusions section is weak given the novelty of the data. The vast majority of the results scattered in the text is not reiterated in the conclusions. For this paper to be of value to a broader audience, an expended conclusions section is required. These expanded conclusions need to focus upon the significance of the work.
Other comments.
- Limitation and scope of the study should be provided at the end.
- The readers may wonder what are the new contributions the present research can provide? What are the future implications? Please also offer a deeper relevant analysis to answer these questions.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
First of all, we want to Thank You for Your time that You spend making a review and all professional comments.
The article has been revised, the abstract, introduction and conclusion sections were revised and expanded. (All changes were processed to satisfy the requirements of all reviewers) All changes in the article are highlighted by the Microsoft Word Revision so that they are identifiable. We also want to inform You that the process of MDPI English editing have been started.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed my concerns. The format of numbers in tables should be revised before publication.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
first of all, we want to thank You for Your time that You spend making a review and all professional comments.
The article has been revised, the format of numbers was changed and the MDPI English editing were done.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have implemented the question rised by the reviewer and imporved the paper quality. Nevertheless, the English though the overall manuscript must be corrected.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
first of all, we want to Thank You for Your time that You spend making a review and all professional comments.
The article has been revised, the format of numbers was changed and the MDPI English editing were done.
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised version has considerably improved compared to the original one. As such, I recommend publishing in Sustainability.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
first of all, we want to thank You for Your time that You spend making a review and all professional comments.
The article has been revised, the format of numbers was changed and the MDPI English editing were done.
