Thermochemical Techniques for Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste Based on the Intuitionistic Fuzzy Hypersoft Evaluation Based on the Distance from the Average Solution Technique

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report

    Manuscript ID: sustainability-3417001
    Paper Title: Thermochemical Techniques for Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Hypersoft EDAS Technique
    
    The manuscript addresses a critical global challenge of municipal solid waste management, particularly focusing on low-to-middle-income countries like Pakistan. It introduces a novel approach using intuitionistic fuzzy hypersoft sets and the evaluation based on the distance from the average solution technique for multiple attribute group decision-making problems. The study is timely and contributes to the field by integrating advanced mathematical tools with practical waste management scenarios. The manuscript is interesting and well-written, but there are some minor comments as follows:

1. While the abstract and introduction outline the problem, the specific contributions of the manuscript need to be stated more explicitly.
2. The mathematical principles describing operational laws and combination operators are highly technical. Authors must provide additional explanatory notes or mathematical simplification to enhance their accessibility.
3. With more explanation, diagrams, and schematic representations can be made more detailed and appealing to improve comprehension.
4. The authors must further elaborate on the real-world implications of adopting the proposed approach, including its feasibility and potential challenges in implementation.

Author Response

The manuscript addresses a critical global challenge of municipal solid waste management, particularly focusing on low-to-middle-income countries like Pakistan. It introduces a novel approach using intuitionistic fuzzy hypersoft sets and the evaluation based on the distance from the average solution technique for multiple attribute group decision-making problems. The study is timely and contributes to the field by integrating advanced mathematical tools with practical waste management scenarios. The manuscript is interesting and well-written, but there are some minor comments as follows:

Response: We thank the reviewer for the great feedback and are grateful for the reviewer's comments, which increased the quality of the manuscript.

1. While the abstract and introduction outline the problem, the specific contributions of the manuscript need to be stated more explicitly.

Response: Thnaks so much for your valuable comment, we revise the abstract and introduction as per your suggestions and stated the problem which we solved in this research. Please see the abstract and introduction in the revised manuscript.

2. The mathematical principles describing operational laws and combination operators are highly technical. Authors must provide additional explanatory notes or mathematical simplification to enhance their accessibility.

Response: We appreciate your valuable feedback regarding the accessibility of the mathematical principles describing operational laws and combination operators.

We added detailed explanations to clarify the purpose and relevance of the operational laws and combination operators. Specifically, we have included descriptions of how these mathematical constructs model the interactions between decision-making parameters, such as environmental impact, economic feasibility, and resource efficiency. These additions highlight their practical significance in MSW management.

The AOs laid out in [45] are not enough for properly evaluating facts built in more secure categories and possess the exactitude requisite to produce precise outcomes. Let  be two experts with weights  and  be the parameters with their sub-parameters, such as  and . Where,    with weights . Let  be an alternate, then experts evaluation  of the planned aspects in terms of IFHSNs. The, obtained aggregated value using IFHSWA [45] operator is . The validity of these AOs is unreliable, and only basic knowledge about the alternatives can be found. Thus, merging IFHSNs into the composition of interaction AOs offers an exciting and important way for investigation. The techniques described in [45] are inadequate for carefully examining information while observing previous theoretical structures and presenting obvious, practical implications.

3. With more explanation, diagrams and schematic representations can be made more detailed and appealing to improve comprehension.

Response:  We acknowledge your advice to increase the readability and accessibility of the figures and graphic representations in the manuscript. Please see the figures in the revised manuscript.

4. The authors must further elaborate on the real-world implications of adopting the proposed approach, including its feasibility and potential challenges in implementation.

Response: We appreciate your valuable suggestion to elaborate on the practical implications of executing the suggested approach, encompassing its viability and potential implementation issues. Already, we discuss the implications of the proposed model in 3 different aspects in subsection 7.3. please see the subsection 7.3 in the revised manuscript. Also, given as follows:

7.3. Research implications

The most important purpose of this paper is to present an adequate thermochemical waste disposal method for municipalities in Pakistan. Five thermochemical alternatives are being explored for assessment. The conventional EDAS approach is frequently implemented as a multi-criteria decision-making strategy, and a substantial quantity of literature on the technique has been available. Multiple investigations have extended the applicability of EDAS in different fuzzy structures. This research uses a generalized distance function to extend the EDAS technique in the IFHSS structure. Several implications formed by this planned improvement are presented as follows.

7.3.1. Methodological implication

The diagram shown in Figure 2, along with the details described in Section 5, demonstrates the sequential steps of the proposed approach. More precisely, this approach uses the interaction aggregation and interaction-ordered AOs presented in Sections 3 and 4 to organize the five experts' decision matrices. The consequent fused decision matrix is applied to determine the average solution. This approach particularly uses the EDAS technique in an IFHSS framework. IFHSS-EDAS is characterized by its insistence on the average solution, which varies from the positive and negative ideal solutions determined in the TOPSIS approach [44]. This property imparts more benefit when comparing FS, IFS, FSS, and IFSS, stimulating the practicality of decision-making processes. When considering the disposal method for hazardous waste, pyrolysis is the optimum thermochemical procedure among the five investigated alternatives. The method's applicability is demonstrated by its ability to be used in all municipal governments in Pakistan. The research examines how to calculate score evaluation using average solutions for alternatives. The technique proposed here indicates the prospect of future study efforts, adding to the developing field of decision-making strategies.

7.3.2. Theoretical implication

This study concentrates on a MAGDM problem regarding the most effective decisions about MSW disposal methods for municipalities in Pakistan. The theoretical applications of this hybrid approach will be stated in the following way:

Integrating IFHSS in the EDAS approach helps the modelling of integral unpredictability and inaccuracy in the decision-making process. IFHSS effectively conveys complicated fuzzy facts by combining HSS and IFS knowledge. It enables amplification of the unpredictability of the data to calculate criteria weights.

The merging of the dynamically optimized methodology with IFHSS-EDAS improves its theoretical potential by effectively resolving the convoluted interactions between the parameters. When determining the best way to dump MSW, several factors require being taken into perspective, such as its impact on the surroundings, affordability, energy effectiveness, and ability. Since these factors have an abundance of unpredictable interactions, the classical optimum model is inappropriate for expressing their convoluted nature. An irregular optimal strategy promotes a more precise and accurate analysis of the most beneficial MSW disposal technology, considering the problem's non-linear characteristics and generating precise outcomes.

A detailed assessment of MSW disposal methods can be executed using the IFHSS-EDAS technique and irregular optimization. By implementing compromise research, stakeholders can review the functionality of various techniques over distinct parameters while simultaneously focusing on several criteria for assessment. A careful investigation promotes a balanced selection of the technology by considering the disadvantages and the benefits between variables that contribute to a better-informed decision-making process.

The execution of the IFHSS-EDAS technique complemented by dynamic stabilization indicates a theoretical development regarding decision-making techniques for MSW. The theoretical repercussions include the ability to boost and enhance the approach, presenting prospects for future research. This may involve considering more boundaries, integrating factors that modify over time, or merging the opinions of multiple experts.

7.3.3. Managerial implication

This research investigates five thermochemical techniques for treating MSW: Incineration, Plasma arc gasification, Thermal depolymerization, Pyrolysis, and Thermal gasification. However, according to the IFHSS-EDAS approach, pyrolysis (X_4) is the most effective technique for managing MSW on the specified factors and sub-factors in Section 6.2.

Pyrolysis is when organic materials are heated without oxygen, causing them to disintegrate into smaller particles, including gases and liquid fuels. The process occurs inside a pyrolysis reactor, a specially built container that operates at high temperatures (400 ◦C–800 ◦C) and pressure. Burning is prevented without oxygen, which results in the fragmentation of substances into smaller pieces via a sequence of chemical procedures. Pyrolysis is a flexible waste-to-energy approach capable of dealing with a wide range of resources, such as items that are difficult to recycle or dispose of, like rubber and agricultural residue. This approach contributes to reducing the total quantity of waste in dumps. It encourages the production of sources of renewable energy that generate liquids and gases that can be applied to boiling, generating power, or as ingredients in producing chemicals and other commodities.

Several managerial implications relate to the pyrolysis technique and need meticulous consideration. Here are a few of those features: It minimizes the detrimental impact of waste treatment on the surroundings by limiting the quantity of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere and reducing the amount of fossil fuels used.

Using pyrolysis as an MSW management approach requires significant investments in technology and appliances. Therefore, it is important to precisely assess operational problems, such as the availability of adequate resources and the financial implications relating to gear and administration.

It may be essential to devote quite a bit of capital initially to implement pyrolysis as an MSW disposal method. However, it presents the prospect of financial rewards in the future. All alternatives are eliminating energy expenditures, minimizing trash disposal, and earning money from resale waste products.

Securing authorization from the regulatory organization with authority over waste and environmental handling techniques is necessary before implementing pyrolysis. To prevent potential repercussions or legal problems, it is important to get the proper authorization to operate.

Local communities and regulatory bodies are among several organizations that must be engaged in properly implementing pyrolysis. Although thoroughly describing precautions and protection of the environment, it is necessary to inform these stakeholders of the conceivable benefits and risks related to pyrolysis.

To make the manufacturing process of pyrolysis, educational and training initiatives are required for workers and other stakeholders. Training personnel on the correct use of pyrolysis equipment and providing information about the method's benefits and downsides are all part of this process.

Consequently, pyrolysis has been chosen for MSW management in part because of the EDAS approach. In light of the preceding, pyrolysis can be implemented by Pakistani municipalities as an efficient and secure means of disposal of MSW, with an emphasis on environmental preservation and respect for the requirements and worries of all parties concerned.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an effective approach to the processing and disposal of municipal solid waste, which aligns well with the scope of the journal.

However, the following issues need to be addressed:

1. Could you please provide references for Figure 1?

2. While the article contains valuable information, it is quite lengthy and structured like a thesis rather than a research article. It is suggested to restructure the content, and shorten the literature review.

3. Are all the equations and calculations necessary? How can they be practically applied?

4. For Figures 2 and 3, could the font size be standardized for consistency?

5. The text in Tables 3, 4, and 5 appears to be squeezed.

6. For Table 6, would it be possible to include additional comparisons? The current presentation seems to lack significance if the other models do not have scores or rankings.

 

7. Is there a specific reason for using different chart styles in Figures 5 and 6?

Author Response

The article presents an effective approach to the processing and disposal of municipal solid waste, which aligns well with the scope of the journal.

However, the following issues need to be addressed:

Response: We thank the reviewer for the great feedback and are grateful for the reviewer's comments, which increased the quality of the manuscript.

1. Could you please provide references for Figure 1?

Response: thanks so much for your valuable comment; we provide the reference for Figure 1. Please see the revised manuscript.

2. While the article contains valuable information, it is quite lengthy and structured like a thesis rather than a research article. It is suggested to restructure the content, and shorten the literature review.

Response: thanks so much for your valuable suggestion; we revise the introduction and literature review as per your suggestion. Please see the introduction and literature review in the revised manuscript.

3. Are all the equations and calculations necessary? How can they be practically applied?

Response:  Thanks so much for your good question. Yes, all these equations are used in this manuscript are necessary for the proposed model. Also, all the calculations are necessary for the readers understanding.

4. For Figures 2 and 3, could the font size be standardized for consistency?

Response: thanks so much for your suggestions; we updated the font size for figures 2 and 3. Now, the font sie is consistent, please see the figures in the revised manuscript.

5. The text in Tables 3, 4, and 5 appears to be squeezed.

Response: thanks so much for your valuable suggestions; we understand the importance of ensuring that all the tables are clearly readable for readers. We improved the readiability of tables 3,4, and 5. Please see the tables in the revised manuscript.

6. For Table 6, would it be possible to include additional comparisons? The current presentation seems to lack significance if the other models do not have scores or rankings.

Response: thanks so much for your suggestions; we compared our proposed model with further studies. Please see the Table 6 in the revised manuscript.

7. Is there a specific reason for using different chart styles in Figures 5 and 6?

Response: Thanks so much for your good comment; there is no specific reason for using these different styles of charts in Figures 5 and 6. We used these different styles just to differentiate the comparison with different aspects. In Figure 5, we compared our proposed model with different operators in the same structure, and in Figure 6, we compared different available methods in the same structure.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper proposes an innovative approach to municipal solid waste (MSW) management using intuitionistic fuzzy hypersoft sets and an adapted EDAS method. The study is well structured, with a solid introduction, rigorous methodology and promising results. The article's relevance lies in its ability to propose viable solutions for the environmental challenges facing low- and middle-income countries like Pakistan.  

 

However, some minor revisions are needed to improve the article's clarity and scope. It is recommended to  

1. Provide more details on the parameters chosen for the aggregation operators and their influence on the results.  

2. To enrich the discussion on the limitations of the proposed method compared to other existing approaches, especially in complex operational contexts.  

3. To revise certain formulations in the text to ensure optimum linguistic fluidity and precision.  

 

Once these points have been addressed, the article will be ready for publication and will make a significant contribution to the field of sustainable solid waste management.

Author Response

The paper proposes an innovative approach to municipal solid waste (MSW) management using intuitionistic fuzzy hypersoft sets and an adapted EDAS method. The study is well structured, with a solid introduction, rigorous methodology and promising results. The article's relevance lies in its ability to propose viable solutions for the environmental challenges facing low- and middle-income countries like Pakistan. 

However, some minor revisions are needed to improve the article's clarity and scope. It is recommended to 

Response: We thank the reviewer for the great feedback and are grateful for the reviewer's comments, which increased the quality of the manuscript.

1. Provide more details on the parameters chosen for the aggregation operators and their influence on the results.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We appreciate the chance to explain why we chose of parameters for the aggregation operators used throughout our research. The features had been selected for their capability to accurately depict different levels of unreliability and imperfection found within the information under consideration. We selected parameters that enable the aggregation operators to regulate the interactions between intuitionistic fuzzy sets and soft numbers, ensuring that the aggregation process accurately represents an accurate comparison of alternatives. The parameters contain weighting factors, threshold values, and the degrees of membership and non-participation, which were modified to reflect the system's intricacies under examination.We performed sensitivity analyses to assess their influence on the results by altering these parameters within reasonable boundaries and examining their effect on the final results. Our findings indicated that fluctuations in these factors substantially impacted the aggregation outcomes, hence affecting the whole decision-making process. For instance, augmenting the weight of a specific criterion resulted in a more significant impact of that criterion on the ultimate selection, but modifying the threshold values enhanced the categorization of alternatives into more precise classifications.

2. To enrich the discussion on the limitations of the proposed method compared to other existing approaches, especially in complex operational contexts.

Response:  thanks so much for your valuable suggestion; we discussed the limitations of our proposed model in subsection 7.3.3. which are given as follows:

Although our strategy enables mobility and resilience, it confronts limitations in complicated and unpredictable scenarios, particularly for computing expense and manageability as the variety of feasible inputs grows. Also, its reliance on predetermined parameters may poorly reflect operational variations in unpredictable conditions, and the presumed existence of autonomous criteria can result in inferior results when criteria interact, underscoring the necessity for more flexible or multipurpose strategies in these circumstances.

3. To revise certain formulations in the text to ensure optimum linguistic fluidity and precision.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We acknowledge the value of preciseness and clarity in the syntax and have carefully reviewed the relevant sections. We improved the phrases to increase linguistic mobility and ensure the concepts are stated more concisely and properly.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to all concerns raised during the review.

Author Response

Comment: The authors have responded to all concerns raised during the review.

Response: Thanks so much for your valuable comments and suggestions during the first round of the review. Your comments were very helpful for us in improving the manuscript quality.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please carefully improve the manuscript based on the comments. The revised manuscript is still lengthy, and I still see different font sizes and alignments in Figures 2 and 3.

For Figure 1, please cite the website appropriately.

In addition, please minimize the n/a in Table 6 and increase the font size of the charts.

Author Response

1. Please carefully improve the manuscript based on the comments. The revised manuscript is still lengthy, and I still see different font sizes and alignments in Figures 2 and 3.

Response: Thanks so much for your comment; in the first round of review, we reduced the length of the introduction and literature review. Also, in this round, we tried to decrease the length of the manuscript. Almost 1 page is removed from the introduction and literature review section. Also, 2 more pages are removed from the whole manuscript. Moreover, we improved the font size of Figures 2 and 3 per your suggestions. Now, the font size of Figures 2 and 3 is consistent. Please see the revised manuscript.

2. For Figure 1, please cite the website appropriately.

Response: Thanks so much for your valuable suggestion; we cite the proper website in the caption of Figure 1. Please see Figure 1 in the revised manuscript.

3. In addition, please minimize the n/a in Table 6 and increase the font size of the charts.

Response: Thanks for your comment on Table 6. We compare our proposed EDAS model with available EDAS models in the different fuzzy structures. The phrase “n/a” represents that the available EDAS models such as Fuzzy EDAS [65], IFS EDAS [66], PFS EDAS [69], Cubic PFS EDAS [29], Picture Fuzzy EDAS [71], and q-ROFS EDAS [72] cannot deal with the parametric and sub-parametrized values of the alternatives. Because of this, we cannot apply the already available EDAS models to different structures in our data set. So, we cannot minimize the phrase n/a from Table 6. We are confused about the chart font size that you are asking for. Please, can you mention the chart?

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Glad that most of the comments have been addressed.

Please enlarge the font size of Figures 5 and 6.

Furthermore, the supplementary file does not seem to be relevant to the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. Please enlarge the font size of Figures 5 and 6.

Response: Thanks so much for your valuable suggestion; we updated figures 5 and 6. Please see the revised manuscript.

2. Furthermore, the supplementary file does not seem to be relevant to the manuscript.

Response: Thanks so much for your comment; we know that the supplymentry material does not belong to the manuscript content. We uploaded this file just for editorial assistance in utilizing APC discount vouchers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx