A Techno-Ecological Transformative Approach of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill in Upper-Middle-Income Countries Based on Energy Recovery

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a transformative approach to municipal solid waste management in upper middle-income countries, focusing on energy recovery and GHG emissions reduction. However, some issues such as a lack of real-world validation, oversimplified assumptions, insufficient economic and policy analysis, and poorly explained visualizations undermine its scientific rigor and practical relevance. Additionally, the proposed "techno-ecological" metric lacks broader validation. Combined with language and presentation deficiencies, these weaknesses necessitate “major revisions” to enhance methodological robustness, practical applicability, and overall readability.

1. The stated objectives of transitioning municipal solid waste (MSW) landfilling practices in upper middle-income countries are not well-aligned with the results presented. Revise the introduction to clearly define how the proposed methodology addresses the gaps in current practices.

2. The use of the LandGem and IPCC models for methane emission estimation lacks justification for their application under Algerian conditions. The manuscript should elaborate on why these models were chosen and compare their appropriateness for the case study. It is recommended to validate the accuracy and applicability of the LandGem and IPCC models through advanced related studies, such as the "Generalized solutions for advection- dispersion transport equations subject to time- and space-dependent internal and boundary sources" to overcome the limitations of this study in addressing regional and temporal variations in pollutant or resource recovery.

3. The paper heavily relies on simulations but does not provide validation against real-world data. Incorporate experimental or field data to strengthen the reliability of the simulation results.

4. The proposed "techno-ecological" metric is innovative but lacks broader validation. Additional case studies or sensitivity analyses should be included to confirm its robustness.

5. The methodology section does not sufficiently explain key parameters used in the LandGem and IPCC models, such as the methane generation rate and degradable organic carbon fraction. Clarify these parameters and their sources.

6. Figures such as methane emission trends and energy recovery rates are informative but lack sufficient explanations. Ensure all figures are adequately labeled and provide more detailed captions.

7. The manuscript mentions that all data is included, but critical datasets, such as waste composition changes between 2012 and 2025, are inadequately detailed.

8. The manuscript contains several grammatical and typographical errors that hinder readability. A thorough proofreading and editing are required to ensure academic rigor.

Author Response

Thank you for the time and efforts involved in assessing our work, and for the constructive comments. Please refer to the attached Cover Letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is very well prepared and corresponds to the current topic of the transition to green energy. But there are a number of comments, according to which it is necessary to make corrections to the text of the manuscript.

1) In the "Introduction" section, it would be useful to present diagrams of the distribution of greenhouse gas emissions (carbon footprint) by year in the world as a whole and separately in developed/developing countries.

2) Formulas (1) - (31) are better designed using the formula editor, since in the form of figures they are not located where they should be.

3) In the "Discussion" section, there is not enough economic data, that is, how much will the transition to green energy cost and how many waste processing plants need to be built, their cost. And then immediately assess its contribution to the GDP of countries in the future in order to outline the prospects and economic feasibility, taking into account the finiteness of oil resources (which, according to various estimates, will last only until 2050).

Author Response

Thank you for the time and efforts involved in assessing our work, and for the constructive comments. Please refer to the attached Cover Letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have thoroughly reviewed the paper you submitted and am genuinely interested in your research. I believe your work will significantly contribute to the management and application of municipal solid waste in the future. In particular, the proposed novel 'techno-ecological' metric represents a substantial advancement towards sustainable development. However, there are several areas in the current version of the paper that require improvement. Below, I will outline my observations and suggestions for enhancement.

Main comments

1. Why does the assessment focus on greenhouse gas emissions for the years 2012 and 2025? Can other years be evaluated? Is there any actual measurement data available for more recent years? How reliable are the accuracy and predictions of these models?

2. Why have only these three landfill methods been selected in the current management mode for municipal solid waste?

3. Since the industrial revolution in 1980, there has been a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Your results indicate that the top 15 years of greenhouse gas emissions are closely aligned with this period. Have you considered the impact of the industrial revolution on the increase in greenhouse gas emissions?

4. A brief summary and comparative analysis could be included in the discussion section.

5. The manuscript format requires modifications. There are numerous formatting issues regarding the presentation of formulas and special characters. Please ensure that these modifications are checked thoroughly.

 

Minor comments

Line 115, 131 There is no need to mark again here. It has been marked above

Line 173 Is this the explanation of Figure 3? Or? It is unclear.

Line 208 m3 changes to m³

line 287-298 Please check carefully. Also check all formulas and chemical symbols in your manuscript.

In Figure 7, the text in the figure overlaps with the content of the figure, which needs to be modified and remade.

There are too many pictures in the text. Authors can consider merging the same type of fig.

Line 602-606 Please check carefully. There should not be a sentence as a paragraph here.

Line 700-702 Please check and modify.

Author Response

Thank you for the time and efforts involved in assessing our work, and for the constructive comments. Please refer to the attached Cover Letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors mention in Section 4 that they adopted a technical reference from "Generalized Solutions for Advection-Dispersion Transport Equations Subject to Time- and Space-Dependent Internal and Boundary Sources." However, it is regrettable that this research is not currently cited in the reference.

Author Response

Thank you for the time and efforts involved in assessing our work, and for the constructive comments. Please refer to the attached Cover Letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be recommended for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for the time and efforts involved in assessing our work, and for the constructive comments. Please refer to the attached Cover Letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf