The Biofactory: Quantifying Life Cycle Sustainability Impacts of the Wastewater Circular Economy in Chile

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The quality of the research is outstanding. The overall structure of the manuscript is fine as well. The manuscript is of great importance for sustainability of WWTPs. 

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments 

1. Add brief methodology in abstract.

2. Add few specific  recommendations. 

3. Re-write problem statement in introduction.

4. Develop link between objectives, methodology, results.

5. Discussion needs improvement. Add relevant latest citations in it.

6. Life Cycle sustainability should be briefly given in introduction. 

7. Statistical analysis should be used for significance.

8. Conclusion section should have specific findings of study.

Need improvement in England language. 

Author Response

1. Methodological aspects were incorporated into the abstract.

2. Recommendations were included in the conclusion section.

3. Problem statement was rewritten in the introduction and the objective was revised across both introduction and methodology sections.

4. The authors would appreciate if the reviewer could elaborate more on this observation.

5. Discussion was re-structured and elaborated upon.

6. Life cycle sustainability is introduced in the introduction; more emphasis was added in text.

7. Statistical significance of the research requires further investigation and alternative publications, and has been discussed more in the paper, however, considering the length of the paper and focus on LCSA, the authors argue it is not relevant to provide this in this paper specifically.

8. Conclusions were updated and recommendations were included. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

First, I would like to thank the authors for this wonderful effort and the valuable information presented in this paper - I have simple comments to make the paper reach its best and make it easier to read, such as:

- There are too many abbreviations in the paper that should be placed in a table at the end of the paper

- The abbreviations in Figures (1 - 2) are drawing keys

- Item No. 3: Results and Discussion, and Item No. 4: Discussion - In this case, the word “discussion” is deleted from Item 3, so it becomes only the results.

- The Supplementary materials are written in a way that is difficult to understand. It is preferable to write them in a table or bullet points for ease of understanding

- The writing of Figures must be standardized i.e. Figure 1 or (Figure 1). There must be uniformity in all Figures on the paper

- BOD must write BOD₅ all over the paper

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1.Stakeholder abbreviations removed to decreased quantity in paper, Figure 4 presents the summary of impact indicators and abbreviations, therefore, more emphasis was added to this figure in text to ensure guide reference for readers. A table of abbreviations is supplied in the supplementary data.   2.Abbreviations in Figures 1 and 2 changed to state drawing keys, legend was updated to show symbols.   3.Discussion deleted from item 3 to become results only.   4.The authors require further guidance regarding the preferred presentation format of the supplementary data.     5.In text referencing to Figures and Tables were all updated to the same format throughout.   6.BOD5 updated across paper

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper "The Biofactory: Quantifying Life Cycle Sustainability Impacts of the Wastewater Circular Economy in Chile" discusses the implementation of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) to quantify the environmental, socio-cultural, and economic impacts of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) with the wastewater circular economy (WW-CE) in Chile. The paper provides valuable insights into the sustainability impacts of WW-CEs and highlights the need for sustainable decision-making models in the sanitation industry, but there are some concerns that must be resolved before it can be considered suitable for publication. The following points outline the issues that need to be addressed:

 

- To enhance the paper's rigor and applicability, it is advisable to incorporate a sensitivity analysis. Sensitivity analysis helps to identify the most important parameters and assumptions that affect the results of the study and provides insights into the robustness of the results. In the case of this paper,  sensitivity analysis could be useful to assess the impact of uncertainties in the input data and assumptions on the results of the LCSA.

- The abstract and conclusion are qualitative, and it is suggested to include some quantitative results from the study to enhance them.

- The length of the paper is excessive and can lead to confusion for the reader. It is recommended to remove any unnecessary sections, cite to their references briefly instead or relocate specific information to the appendix.

- Some provided text and equations lacks specific references or citations. This makes the paper less credible and leaves the reader unsure about the accuracy of the information presented. It is essential to include proper citations to back up statements and findings, as this helps to establish the validity of the research.

Author Response

1.A sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of this model requires special consideration and extensive future research; therefore, this aspect has been discussed more thoroughly in the discussion section of the paper. Including this in the paper will extent the length of the paper significantly also. Therefore, the authors argue it would be more appropriate to provide an alternative paper exploring sensitivity, uncertainty and the relationship to decision making processes in the sanitation industry specifically. 2.The abstract and conclusion were updated to summarise quantitative findings. 3. the word count was revised by applying more concise language across the whole paper. 4.Citations were revised and improved for equations and statements.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, Revision is made considering the comments. I want to elaborate comment 4, as requested by authors. There are different sections of manuscript such as introduction, methodology, results, conclusion and recommendations. All of these should be interlinked for easy understanding for the readers. There is need of minor revision of manuscript;

Last paragraph should have key objectives of the study. 

Thanks

Minor issue

Author Response

Thank you for clarification. The manuscript was revised to improve the description of each section and improve understanding for readers. Specifically, the methodological aspects of LCSA were described in the introduction to reflect the structure of the methodology sections. The goal and scope section of the methodology was updated to relate more clearly to the objective stated in the introduction. The problem statement of the introduction was linked to the goal and scope section, to clarify the selection of alternative scenarios. The system boundaries were clarified to relate to the goal and scope clearly, and described the selection of the scenarios to the life cycle stages (gate-to-cradle to gate-to-gate). The integrated inventories section was updated to clarify the normalization with respect to the functional unit described in the goal and scope. The results section was revised and word count decreased to improve clarity. Discussion was updated to include descriptive introductory sentences. The conclusion section, assuming this is the last paragraph you are referring to, was updated to include a description of the study objectives. 

Thank you for your feedback and the authors hope the revisions respond adequately.