Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I may mot agree that pure brine and recycled brine have the exactly same properties.  Maybe this salt product, however, does not require a high quality.

Author Response

You are right! This is why some “virgin” brine is added to the recycled brine, as shown in figure 14 (and said at lines 459-460 of our manuscript: “The recycled brine remains salt-saturated and still contains some clay, but high purity is not essential. Anyway, a small amount of clean or “virgin” brine is used to finish the washing process, as shown in the figure” ).

Reviewer 2 Report

In response to the authors of the paper, the following clarification is made to the first review:
In the work provided, which certainly has significant industrial value, they have not created a new methodology, they have used an existing one; they have not demonstrated a methodology that was not already demonstrated; they have not created a new artefact; and consequently they have not provided knowledge to science. Thus the authors have merely applied existing knowledge in science to improve the performance of an artefact. Thus, if the authors have not led the way to generate efficiency, the results are not extrapolable to other industrial or scientific problems. Therefore, no knowledge has been created and, consequently, the paper is not of scientific-technical interest to the community.

Author Response

Thank you for your opinion, but after the improvements that we have already introduced to the manuscript, we feel that there is nothing more that we can do to change your mind.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors
Thank you very much for the opportunity to work with you. Thank you for your work. 
In my opinion, there is still a broader perspective missing here. I leave the evaluation of this to you, because you, the authors, know best what should be the scope of the analysis, what elements and relationships you want to show. So my critical opinion does not affect the evaluation, nor does it change the fact that your article is simply good. As authors, you have your own opinion on the subject, and it is your right to take into account the additional suggestions of the reviewers. 
Despite this opinion, I would like to emphasize that your research is very interesting and the presentation and analysis of the results is correct. As a result, I believe that the corrections are sufficient and I recommend your article for publication in Sustainability.

I wish you good luck!

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind words!

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors provided a typescript on the subject An application of Axiomatic Design to improve productivity in the Circular Economy context – the salt production example. In the typescript, the authors discuss the issues of sustainable development and the assessment of the emissivity of the salt production process. Some elements are not fully described clearly.


How the following elements were assessed: 

- increased perceived quality level of the final product - What elements and factors have a direct impact on the quality of the final product? In the case of sustainable development, authors should also take into account the element related to post-utility management. Were such processes assessed by the Authors?

- reduced land area use  - What method was used and by what tool this conclusion was determined. Please supplement.

- improved quality of the working environment  - What indicator was used and with what data and what method the authors determined this conclusion. Please supplement.

Elements organizing the editorial values:

- Some content is highlighted in blue. Does this procedure have a specific purpose? 

 

Author Response

Rev 4:  increased perceived quality level of the final product - What elements and factors have a direct impact on the quality of the final product? In the case of sustainable development, authors should also take into account the element related to post-utility management. Were such processes assessed by the Authors?

Authors: Perceived quality of the final product is evaluated by the whiteness of the salt. A whiter salt means it has fewer impurities than darker salt.

The paper does not evaluate post-utility management—the central aspect of post-utility regards to land use.

Rev 4: reduced land area use  - What method was used and by what tool this conclusion was determined. Please supplement.

Authors: The salt flat to produce virgin brine was reduced from 68 200 m² to 19 900 m². It turned free about 48 000 m², representing 70% of the original flat salt area. The 48 000 m² of land free for other activities is about 10% of the total plant area (483 000 m²).

Rev 4: improved quality of the working environment  - What indicator was used and with what data and what method the authors determined this conclusion. Please supplement.

Authors: The production is mostly mechanized. In the day-to-day work, three persons are needed; during salt collection, about ten. The new production reduced the time of exposition of the personnel to non-mechanized activities under weather conditions by 30%.

Rev 4: Some content is highlighted in blue. Does this procedure have a specific purpose?!

Authors: It regards changes to the previous submission. All new changes are now in the Word track-changes format.

Reviewer 5 Report

The manuscript is well written and organized. The argument is original and aligned with the scope of the journal. According to my opinion, the manuscript could be accepted for publication after minor improvement.

The choice to use axyomatic design to implement circular econonomy is interesting. What about the knowledge base to apply axyomatic design in this field? The following papers could be considered for this purpose: “Spreafico, C., & Spreafico, M. (2021). Using text mining to retrieve information about circular economy. Computers in Industry, 132, 103525.” And “Mas-Tur, A., Guijarro, M., & Carrilero, A. (2019). The influence of the circular economy: Exploring the knowledge base. Sustainability, 11(16), 4367.” And “Russo, D., Rizzi, C., & Spreafico, C. (2017, April). How to build guidelines for eco-improvement. In International Conference on Sustainable Design and Manufacturing (pp. 879-887). Springer, Cham.”.

Author Response

Rev 5: The manuscript is well written and organized. The argument is original and aligned with the scope of the journal. According to my opinion, the manuscript could be accepted for publication after minor improvement.

The choice to use axyomatic design to implement circular econonomy is interesting.

Authors: Thank you very much for your opinion!

Rev 5: What about the knowledge base to apply axyomatic design in this field? The following papers could be considered for this purpose: “Spreafico, C., & Spreafico, M. (2021). Using text mining to retrieve information about circular economy. Computers in Industry, 132, 103525.” And “Mas-Tur, A., Guijarro, M., & Carrilero, A. (2019). The influence of the circular economy: Exploring the knowledge base. Sustainability, 11(16), 4367.” And “Russo, D., Rizzi, C., & Spreafico, C. (2017, April). How to build guidelines for eco-improvement. In International Conference on Sustainable Design and Manufacturing (pp. 879-887). Springer, Cham.”!

Authors: Your viewpoint is very interesting, but solution generation is outside the scope of our paper. In fact, the realm of Axiomatic Design is to check the appropriateness of design solutions and not solution generation.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

From the material flow on Figure 14, FR121 (produce brine) and FR122 (recycle brine) use DP112 (tank's overflow outlet), and FR12 (dilute mixture) uses pure brine and DP122 (recycled brine). Therefore, the matrix of Equation (8) has some extra Xs at FR121 & DP112, FR122 & DP112 and FR12 & DP122. The overall design is coupled, not decoupled. In general, recycling process is good for environment, but makes a coupled design like feedback controlled process for preciseness. Anyway, the main process of FR12 (dilute mixture) can get the better production with a small cost by recycling. Sustainability needs some extra energies for production.  

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper applies Axiomatic Design to a specific case: a salt washing machine. The authors defend this methodology and claim that sustainability must start with product design and product improvement can be achieved through the principle of independence.  By applying this methodology the authors adapted the machinery producing a salt recycling subsystem. The authors also argue that this adaptation resulted in improved efficiency and sustainability of production.

In the opinion of this reviewer, the authors present a well-written paper, understandable to any reader. They also rely on good graphical resources that help to clarify the content of the discourse. However, the application of an existing methodology does not represent a contribution or a novelty to the scientific community. Although the improvements that have been achieved in the machinery studied may have industrial application, and therefore economic benefit, the mere improvement of an industrial process does not represent a scientific advance. Proof of this is that the confirmation of the main hypothesis does not imply that the results of the study can be extrapolated to other products. 

"If uncoupled or decoupled designs - according to Axiomatic Design theory - are good designs in terms of productivity, then they are simultaneously good in terms of sustainability. This hypothesis is based on empirical observations about the effect of independence of the functional requirements on productivity and sustainability. However, the general validity of the hypothesis is not demonstrated at this time".

Providing a further application of a method that has already been applied with similar results does not validate the method, and therefore does not contribute knowledge to the community.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, 
I have read your article and I have a big problem with it. Because it is a factual and insightful analysis of the production process. However, according to me it is a technical analysis and not a scientific one. 
In your case, I am missing the formal elements that are crucial to be able to consider your article as a scientific article. 
1. assumptions and research questions/hypotheses
2. methodology of research
3.generalization of results
4. comparison of results with other studies
5. a summary in the context of the aims, objectives, and research questions.

I find your article extremely interesting, I think it should be published. And I emphasize that I appreciate your work very much, but in this form it is for me a technical article/analysis, not a scientific article. 
Lack of formality and compliance with the requirements for scientific articles does not allow for a positive assessment of the formal side of your article. 

I suggest you resubmit this article after a major formal page makeover.

I wish you good luck!