Next Article in Journal
Estimation of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Removal Efficiency for TiO2 Concrete
Previous Article in Journal
The Extension and Improvement of the Forest Land Net Present Value Model and Its Application in the Asset Evaluation of Cunninghamia lanceolata Forest Land
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

LCA Case Study of Ceramic Tableware: Ecodesign Aspects of Ceramics Production from Ancient Technology to Present Factory

Sustainability 2023, 15(11), 9097; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119097
by Adam Železný 1, Jan Kulhánek 2,*, Jan Pešta 2,3 and Vladimír Kočí 2
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2023, 15(11), 9097; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119097
Submission received: 28 April 2023 / Revised: 25 May 2023 / Accepted: 30 May 2023 / Published: 5 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Products and Services)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research topic is relevant due to the special energy situation in Europe in recent years. The authors raise 

the problem of energy efficiency and environmental friendliness of ceramic production, which is traditional 

for the Czech Republic. A comprehensive analysis of various types of ceramic production was carried out, and 

it was shown that modern production technologies are very economical, and judging by the results of the 

authors, one of the promising directions in an attempt to save as much energy as possible is to achieve the 

efficiency of using industrial furnaces from specific manufacturers. However, I would like to note the 

following points: 

1. The authors in the study focus on the ecosynthesis of pottery. Here I have very big doubts about the 

expediency of choosing the object of study. For example, the production of bricks in the construction 

industry may indeed need estimates of this kind, since the actual figures for the volume of such production 

are really huge. The number of ceramic dishes is only a small part of the entire ceramic production. Make 

appropriate remarks in your work. Otherwise, the purpose of the work looks unreasonable.

2. The authors cited common criteria for comparison after the description of production technologies.

The amount of source material.

The amount of waste.

The amount of fuel for the production of the product.

However, I think that we should also discuss such parameters as:

Time of production of a unit of production.

The number of calories per unit of product.

Real geometrical tolerances (quality standards).

Density, hardness, mechanical resistance (tensile strength) of the final products. The absence of these basic 

comparison criteria makes paragraph 2 weaker.

3. A little personal. In conclusions on this work you are too pragmatic. Be creative! suggest crazy approaches! 

ceramics energy-intensive? Suggest alternative sources for firing it. Volcanoes, for example. The colossal 

pressures of the Mariana Trench for the formation of the Green body. Solar ovens (like, for example, a large 

solar oven in Uzbekistan or in the south of France).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

After reading this paper, I think that this topic is very important because ceramic tableware, as a daily product, directly affects the environment in terms of its production materials, energy, and emissions. At the same time, using the life cycle assessment method, the paper compares five production methods of ceramic tableware, and the results show that different production methods have different impacts on the environment.

However, while reviewing the article, I think there are some areas that need to be improved to enhance the quality and readability of the paper:

  1. In the abstract section, the author could further summarize the purpose and importance of the study to help readers better understand the background and significance of the research.

  2. In the methods section, the author could describe the data sources, assumptions, and limitations in more detail to help readers better understand the reliability and applicability of the research.

  3. In the discussion section, the author could further explore the importance of the research results and how to apply them in practice to improve environmental sustainability.

  4. In the conclusion section, the author could provide more specific recommendations, such as how to implement the life cycle assessment method in practice to reduce environmental impacts and improve production efficiency.

  5. In summary, I think this paper provides valuable research results, but further improvements are needed to enhance the quality and readability of the paper. If the author can handle and address these issues properly, I believe this article has the potential to be published in an international journal.

good

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop