Applying Material Flow Analysis for Sustainable Waste Management of Single-Use Plastics and Packaging Materials in the Republic of Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      Since their implementation in 2018, how successful have been the first master plan for in reducing the amount of plastic waste?

2.      What particular improvement has been found and put into practice for the packaging materials assessed since 2018 using (CUA) system?

3.      How bioplastics affected plastic waste reduction, and what problems appeared throughout this transition?

4.       How the  EPR recycling system has helped to reduce plastic waste through material and structural improvements?

5.      What impact has the introduction of a distinct labelling system for bioplastic products in 2022 had on consumer behaviour and market adoption?

6.     How the evaluation criteria were used to classify data reliability into levels A, B, and C?

7.     What tactics were used in the MFA of packing materials and SUPs for upstream and downstream data?

8.     How were the discrepancies between the upstream and downstream datasets assessed in this study using the standard relative derivation (SRD) method?

9.     Could you provide more details on how the publication date, information source, and issuing institution affect the validity of the data used in this study?

 

10.  What were the main conclusions about the standard deviation (𝐷̅) values, and how did they affect the MFA results' overall reliability (𝑅)?

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered your comments and have provided our responses in the attached document.

Please review the attached file, and do not hesitate to let us know if you require any further information or clarification.

Thank you again for your time and effort.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is subjected to some improvement before being accepted for publication:

1.         Line 99, The novelty and objectives of the current study should be presented in a more clear way.

2.         Introduction section: The waste quantities and other related data should be supported with references from WHO, USEPA etc.

3.         Fig 1, 2 fonts are not clear, it should be consistent.

4.         Line 255, 265, 272 it should be scope 1, 2, 3. Please check

5.         Conclusions are too long. Author should rewrite the conclusion with important findings.

6.         There should be a separate section of “future perspective” other than conclusion for better understanding.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered your comments and have provided our responses in the attached document.

Please review the attached file, and do not hesitate to let us know if you require any further information or clarification.

Thank you again for your time and effort.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read the manuscript and its content is consistent with the scope of the journal. I find your paper interesting, well written and structured. The objective of this study is to perform a reliable MFA of packaging materials and SUPs, which have the shortest lifespans and constitute the largest proportion of plastic waste, and to develop appropriate management strategies based on the findings. Generally, the research has scientific novelty and practical importance. Here are comments and suggestions which will additionally improve the quality of your paper. They are listed below.

1. Abstract in this form is not acceptable and must be edited significantly. Moreover, abstract must be self-descriptive and a small-scale version of full paper. Please, also, enrich the abstract with more numeric findings.

2. Please use more representative keywords. Using “sustainable waste management” can also increase the visibility of your valuable paper.

3. Please use the shortness for material flow analysis MFA, sustainable waste management SWM, and single-use plastics SUP in the introduction section.

4. The conclusions could be re-written to adopt a more balanced approach. Additionally, attention should be paid to the results included in the paper. At the end of the conclusions, indicate future research directions in this area.

I recommend the Editorial Office to accept it for publishing in Sustainability after minor revision.

Kind regards

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered your comments and have provided our responses in the attached document.

Please review the attached file, and do not hesitate to let us know if you require any further information or clarification.

Thank you again for your time and effort.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised accordingly