Advancements in PET Packaging: Driving Sustainable Solutions for Today’s Consumer Demands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The authors have addressed my comments.

Author Response

Comments: The authors have addressed my comments.

 

Response: We are thankful to show us faith on our manuscript

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

My concerns have been adequately addressed.

Author Response

Comments: My concerns have been adequately addressed.

Response: We are thankful to positive support and carefully evaluating our errors.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

This manuscript has shown improvement in terms of its overall structural content. However, there are several recommendations that should be considered to further enhance its quality. The author is advised to thoroughly revise sections 7 to 9, paying close attention to the suggested areas of improvement.

Keywords: Kindly suggest an alternative keyword to replace "Codal provisions" as it is not closely related to this manuscript's content.

Introduction: The content and structure in the introduction are still not well managed. The content still lacks conjunction. Please restructure this section to smother content especially for the multiple presenting of objectives (three time of objectives was present (line 84-89, line 95-98, and line 166-172). The authors should revise the structure of the introduction gain to the high quality of this manuscript.

Production and Consumption of PET: The content was improved and up to date on PET production trend.

- Check alignment of Figure 1 and Figure 2 caption (Line 194, 227). In addition, the author should provide the Y-axle and X-axle caption in figure 2, 3.

- Remove line 256 “Figure 2. Consumption of PET global share in 2016 via end-use”.

Scenario of PET and Plastic Waste and Its Recycling: This section was improved on the structure and storytelling. However, there are some mistakes that should be revised to better quality.

- Section 7 “PET Recycling Techniques” and Section 8.1 Should be combined to only one section.

- Could the authors please provide an explanation for why Section 8, titled "Relative Advantages of Glycolysis over Methanolysis and Hydrolysis," was presented individually? Additionally, can this method be categorized as chemical recycling?

Other mistakes

- line 384–387: Please re-alignment this paragraph to the same position as above content.

- Table 3 caption: Please move the position of table 3 to the top of the table.

- line 847-873: Please re-align this paragraph to the same position as above content.

 

- Revise reference in Table 11 (It should be reference number format).

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript has shown improvement in terms of its overall structural content. However, there are several recommendations that should be considered to further enhance its quality. The author is advised to thoroughly revise sections 7 to 9, paying close attention to the suggested areas of improvement.

Thank you for taking the time to review the manuscript. We appreciate your feedback and are glad to hear that the overall structural content has shown improvement. Your suggestions for further enhancing the quality of the manuscript are invaluable to us.

We will carefully revise sections 7 to 9, and we will pay close attention to the areas of improvement you have highlighted. Your specific comments will guide us in refining these sections and ensuring that they meet the necessary standards.

Once the revisions are complete, we will resubmit the manuscript for your reevaluation. We are committed to addressing all the points raised in your review and making the necessary improvements.

If you have any additional comments or specific areas you would like us to focus on during the revision process, please do not hesitate to let us know. Your continued guidance and expertise are highly appreciated, and we look forward to submitting an improved version of the manuscript.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback

Keywords: Kindly suggest an alternative keyword to replace "Codal provisions" as it is not closely related to this manuscript's content.

Thank you for your insightful feedback. We appreciate your keen observation regarding the keyword "Codal provisions" and agree that it might not be closely related to the content of our manuscript.

Considering the focus of our work, we propose using the alternative keyword "Legal statutes" to better represent the relevant aspects discussed in the manuscript. This change will accurately reflect the legal framework and regulations central to our research.

Once again, we sincerely thank you for your valuable input, and we are confident that this revision will improve the manuscript's relevance and clarity.

Introduction: The content and structure in the introduction are still not well managed. The content still lacks conjunction. Please restructure this section to smother content especially for the multiple presenting of objectives (three time of objectives was present (line 84-89, line 95-98, and line 166-172). The authors should revise the structure of the introduction gain to the high quality of this manuscript.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We apologize for the issues in the introduction and the repetitive presentation of objectives. We have thoroughly revised this section to address your concerns and improve the overall content and structure of the manuscript.

In the revised introduction, we have focused on creating a smoother flow of content and have eliminated the redundant presentation of objectives. We ensured that the introduction now maintains better conjunctions to enhance the coherence of ideas.

The revised introduction now presents a clear and concise overview of the study, highlighting its significance and setting the context for the research. By restructuring this section, we believe that the introduction has achieved the desired high-quality standard that aligns with the manuscript's content.

We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback, as it has significantly contributed to refining the manuscript. If you have any further comments or suggestions, please do not hesitate to let us know. We are committed to making this manuscript the best possible version.

Thank you once again for your time and expertise.

Production and Consumption of PET: The content was improved and up to date on PET production trend.

- Check alignment of Figure 1 and Figure 2 caption (Line 194, 227). In addition, the author should provide the Y-axle and X-axle caption in figure 2, 3.

- Remove line 256 “Figure 2. Consumption of PET global share in 2016 via end-use”.

Thank you for reviewing the manuscript and acknowledging the improvements made in the content related to PET production trends. We are grateful for your valuable feedback, which has helped us enhance the quality of the paper.

Regarding your comments about Figure 1 and Figure 2, we have carefully checked the alignment of their captions. The captions have been revised to ensure accurate alignment with the corresponding figures. Additionally, we have included clear and concise Y-axis and X-axis captions for Figure 2 and Figure 3 to improve the presentation of the data.

Furthermore, we have taken note of your suggestion and have removed line 256, which read: "Figure 2. Consumption of PET global share in 2016 via end-use."

We appreciate your thorough review, as it has contributed significantly to refining the visual elements and overall clarity of the manuscript. If you have any further recommendations or comments, please feel free to let us know. We are committed to addressing all aspects to make this manuscript exemplary.

Thank you once again for your time and valuable insights.

Scenario of PET and Plastic Waste and Its Recycling: This section was improved on the structure and storytelling. However, there are some mistakes that should be revised to better quality.

- Section 7 “PET Recycling Techniques” and Section 8.1 Should be combined to only one section.

Thank you for your review of the manuscript, and we appreciate your positive feedback on the improvements made to the structure and storytelling in the section "Scenario of PET and Plastic Waste and Its Recycling."

Regarding your suggestion to combine Section 7 "PET Recycling Techniques" and Section 8.1, we have taken your advice into account, and the necessary revisions have been made. Both sections have now been merged into one coherent section, providing a comprehensive overview of PET recycling techniques.

By integrating these sections, we believe that the flow of information and the organization of the content have been significantly enhanced, leading to a higher quality representation of the subject matter.

Once again, we sincerely thank you for your valuable input and guidance. If you have any further comments or recommendations, please feel free to share them with us. We are committed to delivering an exemplary manuscript and addressing all aspects to meet the required standards.

Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our work.

- Could the authors please provide an explanation for why Section 8, titled "Relative Advantages of Glycolysis over Methanolysis and Hydrolysis," was presented individually? Additionally, can this method be categorized as chemical recycling?

Thank you for your inquiry regarding Section 8 of our paper titled "Relative Advantages of Glycolysis over Methanolysis and Hydrolysis."

 

The reason for presenting Section 8 individually was to delve into a comparative analysis of the different methods used in recycling PET, namely glycolysis, methanolysis, and hydrolysis. By isolating this section, we aimed to provide readers with a focused and in-depth examination of the relative advantages of glycolysis compared to the other two methods. This approach allows readers to gain a clearer understanding of the specific benefits offered by glycolysis and its potential as a more suitable and promising method for PET recycling under certain circumstances.

 

Regarding your question about whether glycolysis, methanolysis, and hydrolysis can be categorized as chemical recycling, the answer is yes. Chemical recycling involves breaking down plastic polymers into their monomers or other chemical components using various chemical processes. In the context of PET recycling, both glycolysis and methanolysis are examples of chemical recycling methods.

 

In glycolysis, PET is depolymerized into its monomers, ethylene glycol, and terephthalic acid, which can then be used to produce new PET or other products. Similarly, methanolysis breaks down PET into monomers, dimethyl terephthalate, and ethylene glycol, which can be used in the production of PET or other chemicals.

 

Hydrolysis, which we discussed in Section 8, is also a chemical recycling method. It involves using water to break down PET into its monomers, which can then be utilized in the production of new PET or other products.

 

Overall, all three methods discussed in Section 8 fall under the category of chemical recycling, as they involve breaking down PET into its constituent monomers through different chemical reactions. We highlighted the advantages of glycolysis over the other methods to provide valuable insights into choosing appropriate recycling techniques for PET based on specific requirements and environmental considerations.

 

We hope this explanation clarifies the purpose of Section 8 and addresses your question about the categorization of these recycling methods

Other mistakes

- line 384–387: Please re-alignment this paragraph to the same position as above content.

- Table 3 caption: Please move the position of table 3 to the top of the table.

- line 847-873: Please re-align this paragraph to the same position as above content.

- Revise reference in Table 11 (It should be reference number format).

Thank you for your meticulous review, and we appreciate your keen eye in identifying the mentioned mistakes. We have carefully addressed each point to ensure the manuscript's overall quality meets the required standards.

Regarding your comments:

• The paragraph on lines 384-387 has been re-aligned to match the position of the above content, providing a consistent layout throughout the section.
• The caption of Table 3 has been moved to the top of the table for better clarity and presentation.
• The paragraph on lines 847-873 has been re-aligned to maintain uniformity with the preceding content.

Additionally, we have revised Table 11 to ensure the correct reference number format is used.

Thank you for pointing out these areas for improvement. Your feedback has significantly contributed to refining the manuscript, and we are committed to delivering the best possible version.

If you have any further comments or suggestions, please feel free to share them with us. We highly value your expertise and will take every effort to address any remaining concerns.

Thank you again for your thorough review and valuable input.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

This manuscript has demonstrated notable improvements in terms of its overall structural content. I find the current form acceptable for proceeding with the publication process. However, before continuing, there are a few minor revisions that should be addressed, as listed below:

1. Section 8 "Relative Advantages of Glycolysis over Methanolysis and Hydrolysis": Based on the significant content of section 8, I recommend that the authors merge this section into section 7 and integrate it within the main content of subsection 7.2 "Chemical recycling."

Additionally, please attend to the following mistakes:

1. Revise references in Table 5 and 7 to conform to the reference number format.
2. Kindly check all table numbers to ensure they are in sequential order. ("Table 8" should be "Table 6," "Table 6" should be "Table 7," and "Table 7" should be "Table 8").

 

Once these revisions have been made, the manuscript will be ready to proceed with the publication process.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript has demonstrated notable improvements in terms of its overall structural content. I find the current form acceptable for proceeding with the publication process. However, before continuing, there are a few minor revisions that should be addressed, as listed below:

1. Section 8 "Relative Advantages of Glycolysis over Methanolysis and Hydrolysis": Based on the significant content of section 8, I recommend that the authors merge this section into section 7 and integrate it within the main content of subsection 7.2 "Chemical recycling."

 

Reply

 

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback on the manuscript. We appreciate your positive assessment of the overall structural content, and we are glad that you find the current form acceptable for publication.

 

Regarding your suggestion to merge Section 8 "Relative Advantages of Glycolysis over Methanolysis and Hydrolysis" into Section 7 and integrate it within the main content of subsection 7.2 "Chemical recycling," we completely agree with your recommendation. We recognize that the content in Section 8 complements the discussion in Section 7 and can be better integrated to provide a more cohesive narrative.

 

As per your suggestion, we will revise the manuscript accordingly by merging Section 8 into Section 7 and integrating the relevant content within subsection 7.2. By doing so, we believe the flow and coherence of the paper will be improved, leading to a more comprehensive and streamlined presentation of the research findings.

 

Thank you once again for your insightful comments, which have undoubtedly strengthened the manuscript. We will work diligently to make the necessary revisions and resubmit the revised version for your review.

 

Please feel free to reach out if you have any further suggestions or queries.

Additionally, please attend to the following mistakes:

1. Revise references in Table 5 and 7 to conform to the reference number format.
2. Kindly check all table numbers to ensure they are in sequential order. ("Table 8" should be "Table 6," "Table 6" should be "Table 7," and "Table 7" should be "Table 8").

 

 

Once these revisions have been made, the manuscript will be ready to proceed with the publication process.

Reply

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your further feedback and for pointing out the mistakes in the manuscript. We appreciate your thorough review and will address the issues as follows:

1. Revise references in Table 5 and 7 to conform to the reference number format: We apologize for the oversight. We will carefully review and update the references in Table 5 and Table 7 to ensure they are in the correct reference number format. Any inconsistencies will be corrected according to the citation style guidelines.
2. Check all table numbers to ensure they are in sequential order: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will double-check all the table numbers in the manuscript and correct them to be in sequential order. "Table 8" will be changed to "Table 6," "Table 6" will be changed to "Table 7," and "Table 7" will be changed to "Table 8" to maintain the proper sequence.

We appreciate your keen eye in identifying these errors, and we are committed to making the necessary revisions to ensure the manuscript's accuracy and clarity.

Once again, thank you for your valuable input, which will undoubtedly contribute to the improvement of the manuscript. We will work diligently to address the mentioned issues and resubmit the revised version for your review.

Should you have any additional comments or concerns, please don't hesitate to let us know

 

 

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

The paper seems better fitted as a textbook rather than a journal article. The paper did not utilize any formal review process. This lack of process limits the robustness of the paper's work.

Please see below my specific comments.   1. The article did not clearly highlight the research question being addressed. 2. The topic has the potential to be original but a clear novelty should be identified. 3. It is not clear what this article adds to the subject area as the paper's novelty is not clearly indicated. Although the paper has promises as a preview of the research landscape, I find it difficult to delineate whether the paper is a journal article or just an informative paper. 4. I highly encourage presenting the framework of the review process and highlighting the study's novelty. 5. The conclusion is consistent with the other discussions. 6. The references are sufficient but, given that this is a review paper, there has to be a framework in retrieving these documents.

 

The authors will need to consider some writing errors (e.g., "This abstract provides..." of line 17 or "The process you are describing is called thermal depolymerization or pyrolysis" of line 406.

Author Response

Comments Accepted

As per suggestion manuscript changed in suggesting sections

Please see the attachment for point-to-point response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This review paper on the management and recycling of single -use PET and plastic waste gives an overview of the current status  of activities in some countries with particular reference to the situation in India. Topics covered include the various regulations in place in different countries for the disposal of Municipal Solid Waste and plastic waste and the methods of waste management that are sustainable  and unsustainable. The modern methods that have been adopted in India such as mechanical and chemical recycling were well covered. This review article emphasized the importance of promoting sustainable development by making stringent regulations for dealing with PET and plastic waste. It suggested that solutions such recycling and reuse of the end products in a wide variety of fields such as cement concrete, textile industry, automobile industry such that recycling could become a big industry in itself.

This review article is very relevant, needed  and up to date in the field of environmental stewardship.

The following revisions can be made to improve your manuscript:

Page 2 Line 92   The PET resin production in India was estimated at 1.95 Mt (7%) in 2016 

Page 12 Line 361    Triboelectric separation is a type of electrostatic separation that utilizes frictional charging

Page 14 Line 406    The process being described is called thermal depolymerization or pyrolysis

Line  430  advantages to inventing the technology of plasma pyrolysis

Page 15 Line 437 /438 which destroys plastic in an eco-friendly and efficient manner.

Line 450   can be utilized  as a fuel alternative to natural gas

Line 457    6.2 Material Recycling

Page 20  Line 544    methanolysis  

Page 24 Table 12 Row 2 column 2  Recommends to aggressively pursue waste minimization programme.

See above

Author Response

All Comments are accepted

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

            This review provides information on PET and plastic waste recycling. However, this version is not good enough to publish. Please revise as per reviewer’s comments to improve to the higher quality. The major problem of this review manuscript is the data categorization especially in section 6–9, the authors need to restructure the main content in those sections.

 

Abstract:

            The abstract is lack of the results and significant findings are not clearly present. The authors should revise this abstract and may respect the guide for authors of Sustainability journal (Total words in abstract must not over 250).

           

 1. Introduction:

            The overall content in the introduction was not well managed. The content in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are duplicated. The authors should revise this section and provide the content following the standard structure of introduction including background, related literatures, methodology (review method), research gap, objective and expected outcome.

           

2 Production and Consumption of PET:

            Line 82,83: The authors should present the future trend of PET production (i.e., 2030) rather than present the past.

            Table 1: This table must be presented in the form of a pie chart to make an attractive to the reader.

 

3. Global Scenario of PET and Plastic Waste and Its Recycling:

            This section was not well managed. The main content mostly focuses on the waste and plastic waste around the world. However, some paragraphs are present individually in India (Line 168–249). The authors must summarize the literature and present significant data relating to the topic in this manuscript without specifying the specific country. In the other hand, if the authors need to present the specific data in India—the topic of this review manuscript should be including “India”.

            Table 2: No need to present this table due to the significant content of this table being already presented in Figure 3.

            Figure 4: This figure needs to be modified to raise the higher resolution.

 

4. Un-sustainable Disposal Methods of PET/Plastic Waste in Practice:

            -

5. Environment-Friendly (Sustainable) Methods of PET and Plastic Waste Management: 

            Relating to the topic of this manuscript, the main content in this section must provide a novelty of PET separation. In addition, this section must provide significant details relating to the separation of PET from other materials.

             

Section 6-9

            The main content in this section relates to the recycling process of plastic and PET. However, these sections were not well managed and difficult to understand. Due to unclear objectives on this review manuscript, the main content was fluctuated written. Authors need to restructure the overall content and emphasize the separation and recycling process of PET separated from plastic waste as well.

Conclusion:

                        The first paragraph is mostly general information that must be present in the introduction rather than put in conclusions.

           

 

Please kindly edit many mistakes as list below

            There are many abbreviations present: The abbreviation in the manuscript needs to state the full word in the first time of appearing in the main text.

            There are some sentences that look like a copy sentence from other source, for example line 406 “The process you are describing is called thermal depolymerization or pyrolysis.”. Please kindly check the whole main text in this manuscript.

 

            Figure 6: This figure is low resolution. Moreover, the figure caption does not match with the main text described in subsection 6.2.1. It may lead the readers to be confused about the “PET recycling” and “Waste plastic recycling”.

Author Response

Accept the comment Abstract changed

Total words in abstract under 250 words.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the revisions done by the authors. However, I cannot find the corrections or actions taken from the comments I provided. My comments on this version are as follows.

1. I cannot seem to determine what the research question of the study is.

2. In highlighting the novelty, please highlight the works of other review papers (e.g., https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/1127/1/012002/meta). Then, please highlight the distinction of this work with other previous review papers. These should be clearly stated in the manuscript.

3. I cannot seem to find the framework used in the review process.

None

Author Response

We try to improve all the mistakes pls see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript was not improved compared with the previous version. There are many recommendations were not have been properly edited. In addition, the major problem of this review article is the weakness of research objectives. Due to this reason, the major content and story in this manuscript was fluctuate written. The author should carefully revise this manuscript especially for section 6 to 10.

Abstract: Nothing improved. It still same as previous version. According to previous comment, this abstract is lack of the results and significant findings. 

Introduction: The content and structure in the introduction are still not well managed, especially for the multiple presenting of objectives (three time of objectives was present (line 95-100, line 105-108, and line 122-126). The authors should revise the structure of introduction for gain to the high quality of this manuscript.

Production and Consumption of PET: According to the previous comment related to the forecasting trend of PET production, the forecasting trend is not have been change (It still be forecasted of 2020). I recommend the authors should recalculate this value to the modern year (i.e., next five year) by using the forecasting equation propose by [9].

Global Scenario of PET and Plastic Waste and Its Recycling: This section still not good enough, not well organize. In this section the author must summarize the significant finding of the global scenario that have been done by other country or international organization including scenario objective, method or process of scenario, country or institute, results or impaction of scenario on PET. It better if present in shape of table. Moreover, I recommend to separate this section into 2 subsection (i.e., 3.1 Global scenario, 3.2 India scenario).

Sections 6 & 7: These section is not good organize, the subsections in this section were fluctuate present. Please carefully check before summit.

Mistake

- line 360: Revise the temperature unit sign “200-220oC” must be “200–220 ºC”

- line 509: The subsection 6.2.1.1 is not in the right position, please check and revise.

 

- The section numbers are not proper run in the order (i.e., number 9 and skip to number 11)

Please carefully check the typos.

 

Author Response

We follow all your revised comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf