Repair and Reuse or Recycle: What Is Best for Small WEEE in Australia?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors! Your manuscript undoubtedly holds interest for researchers in the field of recycling electronic waste, as well as regulatory bodies. The article provides a detailed analysis of various repair and disposal schemes for small electronic waste, and offers recommendations for consumers, manufacturers, and regulatory bodies. In my opinion, the manuscript can be published with some revisions. Here are a few comments: 1) In the manuscript, it is emphasized that the storage of electronic waste harms the environment. However, it is not specified how the storage of waste harms nature. You need to clarify this issue 2) You consider extracting only such metals as Fe, Al, Ag, and Cu from the waste. At the same time, such waste may contain a large amount of rare earth metals. Why don't you consider their extraction? 3) Please increase the font size on figures 3 and 1 4) In section 5, you indicated that you used the Python programming language for preparing the manuscript, but you did not indicate which libraries and methods you used. Please add this information to the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the valuable comments. Please find the attached response document.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

All the suggestions and recommendations are given in docx file that may be found in the attachement. Check all the suggestions  given, and addres your answers. Submitted manuscript is pretty well written, there are only few issues found throuhout the text, and I think authors will quickly remove those issues and submit back revised manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the valuable comments. Please find the attached response document.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract

1.      Please provide a summary of the Waste Generation Estimation model.

2.      Lines 20 and 23 – inconsistent use of the word ‘synergistic’ and ‘synergetic’.

3.      Line 28 – please correct the inappropriate capitalization for Toys, Food, etc.

Background

1.      Lines 38-39 – the sentence appears awkward, especially the use of ‘while’. Please revise.

2.      Please explain why there is a concern for shorter lifespans of EEE. What could be the reasons for that since EEE is generally becoming more advanced and durable?

3.      Lines 43 – please provide more details on the export of WEEE to developing countries, particularly the reasons behind the export. Why the high-income countries have failed to dispose of WEEE while they supposedly have the technology to do so? It would be good to include some statistics to support the claim.

4.      Line 46 – the authors need to explain what a lifecycle approach means and how it is implemented by the stakeholders.

5.      Please provide the background of the Circular Economy

6.      Lines 60-62 lack clarity. Please explain what delay the inevitable is. Please revise the sentence.

7.      Please provide statistics to support Australia as one of the largest WEEE generators.

8.      Line 73 – please revise the term ‘elevated by the manufacturers’.

What is small WEEE?

1.      Line 79 – ‘inconsistency’ or ‘consistency’?

2.      Lines 80-82 – revise the sentence starting with ‘Usually, the product category…’

3.      This section is hard to follow. The authors may restructure it by defining WEEE and the different ways of classifying small WEEE, including a brief account comparing the similarities and differences, before introducing how WEEE was categorized in this article.

Status of repair and reuse of small WEEE

1.      Line 130 – the authors need to substantiate the claim that consumers are willing to purchase second-hand EEE with more studies.

2.      Line 136 – the authors mention that there are multiple enablers for the reuse of small EEE, but the only enabler stated is the lower cost of spare parts. Self-repair might not be an enabler, neither is a poorly developed second-hand market.

3.      It is suggested that the authors perform a thorough proofreading of the manuscript due to the presence of numerous grammatical, editing, and syntax errors.

Status of recycling of small WEEE

1.      Line 190 - Please clarify ‘overweigh the extra revenues generated’.

Materials and methods

1.      Lines 215-216 – the sentence is repetitive.

2.      The authors may explain more about the qualitative aspects that deter firms from making sound decisions and what the current practices of decision-making are.

Results and discussion

1.      Figure 1 – the authors may state that the historical data for WEEE generation rates were taken from a secondary source. If all the data were generated through the estimation models, the past values need to be validated against the actual data to indicate the accuracy of the estimation model.

2.      There was an obvious downswing starting from 2017 before a projected rise from 2025. What could be the reason for that and why the trend could not be sustained?

3.      Figure 1 – please use contrasting colors to indicate categories such as Hotwater EEE, Toys, Microwaves, Speakers, Household Tools, and Foor Preparation EEE, which have similar/ repetitive colors.

4.      Line 403 – please explain more on the valuing of small WEEE. Toys are expected to have the highest valuation even though they are made up primarily of plastics, which do not fetch high recycling prices in comparison to metals.

5.      The increase in Figure 1 is primarily contributed by toys. Please explain the reasons.

6.      Figure 3 – please explain why a reduction in the lifespan of EEE results in a decrease in the WEEE generation rate against the baseline. It seems that PoM plays a role but the figure does not seem to capture that.

7.      There is minimal discussion. The authors should compare the results against those of other similar studies.

8.      Lines 499-501- please clarify the significance of tripling material flow. The discussion of Figure 5 needs to be expanded. Does early obsolescence mean decreasing the lifespan of EEE, and does PoM increase mean increasing the manufacturing of EEE? Pushing up production and shortening lifespan to promote recycling does not seem to align with the concept of circular economy. In fact, it seems to defeat the purpose of recycling.

Conclusion and recommendation

1.      The authors need to provide more specific recommendations on the intervention for toys since they are the main contributors to WEEE.

2.      The authors need to suggest the optimal reuse, recycling, and repair strategies for toys and other major contributors to WEEE since this study is not just about recycling.

3.      The authors do not seem to explicitly answer the question of repair and reuse or recycle posed in the title in relation to WEEE. Instead, the conclusion comes back to the generic hierarchy of waste management (reduce, reuse, then recycle) which might curtail the significance of the paper.

There are multiple grammatical, editing, and syntax errors. It is suggested that the authors perform a thorough proofreading of the paper. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the valuable comments. Please find the attached response document.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has been substantially improved, and all the comments have been appropriately addressed. However, there are some minor editing errors related mainly to the random capitalization of words as below, which can be corrected during the copyediting stage of the paper. 

Line 123 – Monitors, Line 131 – the first letter of ‘computer’ should be capitalized, Line 135 – ‘Phones’ should be ‘phones’, Line 139 – ‘Equipment’ should be ‘equipment’.

Line 242 – the names of the metals do not have to be capitalized.

Line 531 – ‘Generation Rates’ should be ‘generation rates’

Line 609 – ‘Repair and Reuse’ should be ‘repair and reuse’.

Line 630 – ‘Video’ should be ‘video’

Line 651 – remove the parenthesis after CE.

Line 674 – ‘a shift that’ should be ‘a shift to’.

Please also check if 'products Put market' in the abstract is the correct full name for (PoM).

The English is generally good, except for minor grammatical and editing errors which can be fixed in the next stage of publication. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, we has revised in the manuscript.