Recovery and Recycling of Selected Waste Fractions with a Grain Size Below 10 mm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted review paper fits well to the journal scope. The novelty is a literature analysis of the quantity, composition and sources of waste in the fraction below 10 mm, with a view to defining the possibilities of its recovery, recycling and disposal, origin from both municipal and industrial waste.

The article may constitute a basis for developing appropriate technologies for the disposal of waste with a diameter below 10 mm, which will allow to eliminate the described group of waste from landfills. The sources of generation of the described waste included municipal waste recovered on sieves of mixed and sorted municipal waste sorting plants, waste from the recovery and reclamation of raw fractions, and waste from post-industrial areas, waste and ash from coal combustion and construction. The collected and analyzed literature indicates that waste with a fraction smaller than 10 mm can be reused to produce a new product, e.g. a substitute for conventional raw materials in the production of lightweight aggregates and other construction materials. The proper technology will allow for the circulation of troublesome waste by producing new products or materials from them.

The manuscript is well structured. The analysis of 127 references allowed to write a manuscript. Nevertheless I suggest few small changes to make the article more clear for the readers: 

1. Please define the goal and write why you took up such a topic. Are there any plans to undertake further research in this area?

2. What was the goal of the research - please emphasize it and in the summary indicate whether it was achieved.

3. I suggest that in the introduction you list all such waste, because each of them may have a different composition and characteristics. Of course, other waste streams may be the subject of subsequent articles.

4. I suggest verifying the key words; they can be expanded. It will be important due to its identification and citations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I do not feel qualified and able to assess the quality of English in this paper. I am not a native speaker. As the reader of scientific literature in English I can read and understan the text of the submitted paper. It is well structured and write in a logic way.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your work and the review you sent.

Attached are our responses.

Best regards.

Agnieszka Generowicz

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Since the title was attractive, I read the submitted manuscript carefully.  The authors collected data from published journals and reports. Hower, it is a list of data at each section.
It was difficult to catch and understand the data totally.  Please make tables and figures for data that could help readers to understand the present situation and its problem about waste smaller than 10 mm.
Furthermore, in addition to the data collection, please create new knowledge and ideas and develop a knowledge system based on the collected data. I think the manuscript is required to be revised significantly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your work and the review you sent.

Attached are our responses.

Best regards.

Agnieszka Generowicz 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, You have studied a very interesting theme, but the level of your study is mere. I recommend improving your article using my comments:  1. Revise the abstract to concisely summarize objectives, methods, key findings, and implications. 2. Clearly differentiate among municipal, industrial, and household waste sources.  3. Add a summary table comparing waste fractions to simplify data presentation. 4. Clarify the research gap and significance of waste fractions below 10 mm. 5. Synthesize key findings into a coherent narrative instead of listing results. 6. Discuss limitations of current literature to better contextualize the study.  7. Incorporate diagrams or flowcharts to illustrate waste recovery processes effectively. 8. Remove repetitive descriptions to enhance readability and conciseness. 9. Strengthen the conclusion by summarizing insights and suggesting future research directions. 10. Define technical terms and acronyms when first introduced for clarity. 11. Include recent, relevant studies. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your work and the review you sent.

Attached are our responses.

Best regards.

Agnieszka Generowicz 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been revised to ensure that readers clearly understand the content.

Therefore, the revised manuscript is suitable for publication in this journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your review, which has significantly improved the quality of our article.

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I propose to include some photos of different wastes in your article. It will improve the readability of your article. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your review, which has significantly improved the quality of our article.

Photos of waste have been added to the article content, according to your suggestion

Authors