Standards as a Tool for Reducing Plastic Waste
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The management and treatment of plastic waste is significant and the standars are especially critical. However, this paper is not analyzed in depth, such as the standards types, management subjects, aimes, etc. In addition, conclusion and perspective about the absence or what standards should be issued for the goverment in the future. The references are not too enough.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. We have added significantly to the discussion on standards, and added many more references. We have also added a conclusion, and we do include within the discussion a section on where additional standards could be implemented.
Reviewer 2 Report
The idea of this paper is to overview national (Australian) and international standards addressed to plastics technology, to categorize them referring to different aspects of plastics circular economy and pointing out the areas, which have not been standardized yet, but where standards could be employed to reduce plastic waste and increase circularity. I agree with Authors that standards (but also a legislation) would be very useful in unifying the approach to plastic waste management internationally facilitating the implementation of circular economy and reducing the plastic pollution impact to environment. I find this paper useful, however in Discussion, when overviewing the different standards’ groups Authors point out mostly the areas which should be standardized avoiding the comments on what is already done. In other words, I would expect more comments about the standards already applicable at specified circular economy aspect (with relevant references), and then specifying the areas which should be still considered.
There is also a misunderstanding with tables and figures in the manuscript: line 114 – Table 2 is mentioned, however I can’t find either Table 2 nor Table 1; line 130 – Figure 1, SI ?
Author Response
Please see attached document
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript by Schuyler et al. (sustainability-1829580) “Standards as a tool for reducing plastic waste” aims to decipher standards to improve practices for the reduction of plastic waste, and serves as suitable complementation of previous authors’ publications about marine plastic pollution.
While the topic of the plastic standard is moderately covered when searching the internet, the evidence of their relevance in scientific journals seems to be still limited. Thereby, I consider this manuscript useful for the impact that could have on the scientific community and provides interesting information which could serve as a basis for the improvement of strategies for the regulation of plastic waste.
I have some comments that could improve the present manuscript prior to its publication.
Major comments:
- I could not find Table 2, either Table S1 of Supplementary Materials. I found it difficult to accomplish an adequate review of this manuscript due to the lack of information.
- I encourage the authors to rewrite the Abstract. After reading it carefully, the meaning of Standards looks somehow unclear. Additionally, it could delve deeper into the results and conclusions to facilitate the comprehension of the work, and highlight better the impact and its relevance to be published.
- Please, introduce the term “Standards” in the first paragraph of the introduction given its importance for the manuscript. The authors directly described the importance but did not explain what it is until later.
- In Figure 1, the difference between Australian and international standards can be easily visualized, however, is no distinction between the different subtypes, which could add value to the manuscript. I suggest generating a different version of this figure for Supplementary Materials, where all standards can be distinguished.
The volume of references to support the interpretations along the discussion could be improved.
Specific comments:
· Lines 16-17: more references could be added here given the importance of this background and the amount of material published on the subject
· Lines 49-63: could the authors add a reference for this paragraph?
· Lines 65-71, and 70-96: it sounds speculative for the introduction. I find it more appropriate for the discussion section.
Author Response
Please see attached document. We have addressed each comment in red.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper “Standards as a tool for reducing plastic waste” shows a very interesting subject scientifically to be developed and used for the reduction of plastic waste, however its results and discussion should be better explored. I believe that if the authors complement the content of the paper, it has chances of being accepted for publication. Following some suggestions that could improve its content.
In the abstract: The content has introductory information. The abstract must contain the main information of the paper, such as objective, methodology, results and conclusions.
In general, the verb in the first person (we) is used a lot and a scientific text must be impersonal.
In the results: 96 Standards were found, which should be better presented, located and characterized. Perhaps a table would be interesting for presentation and description.
In Figure 1, 13 standards were cited (overview). What is the criterion for citing these 13 standards? Why were only 13 standards cited? In the second graph of Figure 1 (circular figure) the standards should be identified with different legends, that is, each standard must have a color. .
In discussions: in each item (Quality and safety standards, Information and measurement standards, Variety reducing standards, Compatibility) the standards found should be mentioned for further discussion.
The paper deserves a conclusion, as standardization is a way to reduce plastic waste and meet the circular economy.
Author Response
Please see attached document. We have addressed all comments in red.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It has been revised according to the comments and can be accepted.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive comments during this review.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors’ responses to my comments during the revision process were carefully considered. Consequently, the manuscript by Schuyler et al. " Standards as a tool for reducing plastic waste" (sustainability-1829580) now looks readable and easier to understand.
Please, clarify the next reference:
Line 215: [102]?
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive comments throughout the review process, and for picking up on the mis-numbered reference. We have addressed the issue.
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper “Standards as a tool for reducing plastic waste” shows a very interesting subject scientifically to be developed and used for the reduction of plastic waste. Here's one more suggestion to improve the content of the paper:
Figure 1 (circular figure) shows the standards that should be identified with different legends. Each standard should have a color to facilitate its identification in the circle.
Author Response
Thank you for all of your constructive comments through the process. We just wanted to clarify what you were referring to by the color for each standard. Do you mean that the spreadsheet colors should match the circular diagram colors for each step of the circular economy?
