Review Reports - Advancing Sustainability: Effective Strategies for Carbon Footprint Reduction in Seaports across the Colombian Caribbean

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled " Advancing Sustainability: Effective Strategies for Carbon Footprint Reduction in Seaports across the Colombian Caribbean" applied a deep management process via a set of viable mitigation and sustainable strategies to reduce CO2 emissions in the Colombian Caribbean port. This manuscript was evaluated and major revisions are required as follows:

1. The introduction section required modification by adding more details about CO2 emissions and the pollution problem in the ports.

2. Also, in the introduction section, more moderate studies are needed to describe the pollution range of CO2 emissions in such sites. Moreover, what are the contributions of human activities and commercial activities in the ports in the direction of CO2 emissions?

3. The novelty of this work needed more details to be clear to the readers.

4. On page 4, the section (2.2 Methodological design) needed further details about the methodological design.

5. Also, please add a schematic diagram that summarizes the different applied treatment processes in the present work.

6. More discussions and details are required to explain the results in Tables 2 & 3 and Figures 2 & 3.

7. Rearrange the conclusion section by focusing on the important findings of the present work in one paragraph.

8. All references in the manuscript must be rewritten according to the MPDI style.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

Authors respond: Thank you for your important words in acknowledging the quality of our manuscript. Thank you also for helping us to improve the quality of our manuscript.

The introduction section required modification by adding more details about CO2 emissions and the pollution problem in the ports.

Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the item. To meet this recommendation, the beginning of the introduction was modified, adding more details about CO2 emissions and the problem of pollution in ports. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of our work.

Also, in the introduction section, more moderate studies are needed to describe the pollution range of CO2 emissions in such sites. Moreover, what are the contributions of human activities and commercial activities in the ports in the direction of CO2 emissions?

Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the item. To meet this recommendation, a description of the pollution range of CO2 emissions was included in the introduction, with contributions from human and commercial activities to solve the problems of CO2 emissions in ports. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of work.

The novelty of this work needed more details to be clear to the readers.

Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the item. To resolve this issue, we make the news of this study clearer in the introduction. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of our work.

On page 4, the section (2.2 Methodological design) needed further details about the methodological design.

Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the item. To resolve this issue, we make the news of this study clearer in the introduction. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of our work.

Also, please add a schematic diagram that summarizes the different applied treatment processes in the present work.

Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the items. To resolve this, a schematic diagram was added with the different treatment processes applied in the present work. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of our work.

More discussions and details are required to explain the results in Tables 2 & 3 and Figures 2 & 3.

Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the items. To meet this recommendation, discussions and details were expanded to better explain the results in Tables 2 and 3 and Figures 2 and 3. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of our work.

Rearrange the conclusion section by focusing on the important findings of the present work in one paragraph.

Authors respond: Obrigado pelo apontamento dos itens. Para atender esta recomendação a conclusão foi reorganizada em itens importantes do presente trabalho. Agradecemos por nos ajudar a melhorar a qualidade do nosso trabalho. Obrigado.

All references in the manuscript must be rewritten according to the MPDI style.

Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the items. To meet this recommendation, all references were reorganized in the MPDI standards. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of our work.

Minor editing of English language required

Authors respond: Thank you. We point out that the text was submitted to a specialized professional who is a native English speaker, specializing in translating scientific manuscripts and to an agency specializing in spelling corrections to correct possible spelling and grammatical errors in the manuscript. Thank you for your important words in acknowledging the quality of our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.Introduction

“Nevertheless, a void within the scientific literature emerges concerning the implementation of mitigative strategies within port conditions, as proposed in this study. This void highlights the pioneering potential of this research, not only within Colombia but globally as well. This study could catalyze the adoption of sustainable practices across nations, such as fuel reduction, waste composting, and dacite rock dust application in operational zones to curtail the carbon footprint in seaports, consequently curbing atmospheric carbon emissions.”

Reviewer: The study problem and the gap must be better argued. The justification of the topic must be reinforced with existing literature.

2. Material and methods

2.2 Methodological design

Reviewer: The authors need to explain their methodological choice in more detail. It's not enough to say that they follow study a, b or c. They need to explain these principles, which studies are adapted, what the previous approaches consist of and how these approaches are followed in this study.

4. Conclusions

Reviewer: Conclusions need to make the connection with the gap under study. The authors should state which gap(s) in the literature are being answered in this study in a clear and objective way. In addition, the authors should make reference to the study limitations and future recommendations based on their research and findings.

A study of this nature needs to present an implications section. The authors should mention the theoretical and practical implications of their study. It's not enough to do an innovative study, you need to demonstrate what the implications are. To do this, you need to reflect on your results with the existing literature and how you are making progress with this research.

The study has a lot of potential, and the authors are to be congratulated for their approach to the subject, however, the study needs a greater hook with the literature and with the gap under study.

Good luck!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of the English language only needs a minor revision.

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

1.Introduction

Authors respond: Thank you for your important words in acknowledging the quality of our manuscript. Thank you also for helping us to improve the quality of our manuscript.

Reviewer: The study problem and the gap must be better argued. The justification of the topic must be reinforced with existing literature.

Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the items. To meet this recommendation, the argument in the introduction was improved and justified and reinforced according to existing literature. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of our work.

Material and methods

2.2 Methodological design

Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the items. To meet this recommendation, the methodology was explained in more detail, in addition to improving the graphic quality of the methodology. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of our work.

Conclusions

Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the items. To comply with this recommendation

the conclusion was completely reviewed, in a clear and objective way, where the possibility of future work based on the results was made clear. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of our work.

The study has a lot of potential, and the authors are to be congratulated for their approach to the subject, however, the study needs a greater hook with the literature and with the gap under study.

Good luck!

Authors respond: Thank you for your important words in acknowledging the quality of our manuscript. Thank you also for helping us to improve the quality of our manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of the English language only needs a minor revision.

We are very grateful for the invaluable contributions by the reviewers, which further improved the quality of the manuscript. Technically, the only word of thanks we can express is sincere Gratitude.

Yours very sincerely,

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks to the authors for achieving the required revisions.

Author Response

Thank you for your important words in acknowledging the quality of our manuscript. Thank you for accepting the manuscript for publication

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision work was well done. The article gained more scientific input. It is only suggested that the authors revise the article after final editing in order to standardize the writing.

Congratulations on your work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

Thank you for your important words in acknowledging the quality of our manuscript. Thank you also for helping us to improve the quality of our manuscript.

Thank you. We point out that the text was submitted to a specialized professional who is a native English speaker (by a new agency), specializing in translating scientific manuscripts and to an agency specializing in spelling corrections to correct possible spelling and grammatical errors in the manuscript. Thank you for your important words in acknowledging the quality of our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf