Environmental Implications of Reuse: A Case Study of Electrical and Electronic Devices in Slovenia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting and the topic is very important because it shows how reusing electronic equipment is a more sustainable solution than recycling this type of product. The article is generally well-written, although it could benefit from some minor improvements. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• I think the title isn't very clear. I suggest: “Environmental implications of reuse: a case study of Electric and Electronic Devices in Slovenia”
• On page 2, the word "reuse" and the word "re-use" are mentioned: is there a concrete reason for using two different spellings, or was it just a mistake?
• On line 77 (page 2), a parenthesis is opened but not closed.
• I think the main problem with this article is the description of the study's objectives and methodology, as they are too brief, raising doubts about the work. I believe the objectives to be achieved should be specified in more detail. Lines 112 and 113 on page 3 refer to the objectives in a very summarized way, but these need to be highlighted and broken down into sub-objectives so that there is a clear association between each of the sub-objectives and the various stages of the methodology used. In this sense, the methodology also needs to be more detailed. In practice, only lines 118, 119, and 120 and point 2.3.3 relate to the methodology, as everything else presented in point 2 does not seem appropriate to the methodology and should be placed in a separate point.
• Figure 1 can be converted into a table.
• In line 282/283 you state “cables at 95kg and copper at 74kg”: is the copper you are referring to the copper contained in the cables or is it additional copper?
• I think it should be explained how the values ​​mentioned in the paragraph that begins on line 297 and ends on line 310 were calculated.
• The information presented in Figure 2 doesn't seem very clear to me: why are the values ​​different from those mentioned in the previous paragraph? Why is the incineration always the same for all 3 scenarios?
• In lines 313/314 you mention "in this scenario" but you don't say what it is.
• In the first paragraph of point 4, the references are written following a standard that is not used in the rest of the article.

I hope these suggestions are helpful in improving the article. Good work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1, 

We sincerely thank you for all important feedback. We fully acknowledge all points and have addressed them in the revised manuscript. 

I've attached a file for the detailed responses to each point of concern in the previous manuscript. Together with all reviewers' comments, these revisions have significantly improved the quality of the paper. 

We appreciate your constructive feedback and thank you for your consideration. 

Warm regards,

Souphaphone Soudachanh

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript deals with the environmental evaluation of reuse activities for used electrical and electronic equipment in Slovenia. The authors integrated MFA and LCA to compare various scenarios. Although i found the topic to be relevant to the journal and its scopue, the manuscript unfortunately suffers from serious serious methodological, structural, and linguistic weaknesses. The major comments are below:

The LCA lacks robustness. The authors provide no functional unit definition, no system boundary diagram, and no clear allocation rules for multi output processes. The LCA is limited to Global Warming Potential alone and does not take in to account other important categories that are required in a quality LCA.
The introduction of arbitrary reuse factors (1.0 and 0.5) without experimental or survey validation is a major concern. The reuse factor is really necessary and must be included in the study.

The data set that is used includes only 4.4 tons of material and is too small and nonrepresentative to support national or regional conclusions.

The treatment of recycling and incineration is oversimplified to an unrealistic degree. Incineration is modeled as a single emission factor without accounting for energy recovery credits, different waste compositions, or technological variations. Similarly, recycling losses are fixed at 48.5% for all materials.

The manuscript reads like a project report rather than a scientific article. There are numerous grammatical errors, repetitions, informal expressions, and missing figure references.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2, 

Thank you very much for your constructive feedback. We fully acknowledge all points and have addressed them in the revised manuscript. 

I've attached a file for the detailed responses to each point of concern in the previous manuscript.

In light of all reviewers' comments, these revisions have significantly improved the quality of the paper. 

We highly appreciate your insightful feedback and thank you once again for your consideration. 

Warm regards,

Souphaphone Soudachanh

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on the environmental benefits of electronic waste recycling in the context of circular economy, using the four major recycling centers in Slovenia as a case study. However, the paper needs to be significantly supplemented and improved to enhance its academic quality.
1. The paper needs to explain its relationship with existing LCA research in areas such as "refinement of factors for multi scenario reuse of electronic waste" and "coupling evaluation of the entire chain of urban scale reuse recycling incineration" (e.g. Castellani et al., 2015); The essential difference between R ü ckert et al. (2024) and avoiding duplicate studies.
2. The existing references lack the latest research in the relevant field from 2024 to 2025, and have not fully sorted out the special research and policy details on local electronic waste management in Slovenia.
3. The 70% material allocation ratio and 61% reuse ratio of "full reuse" lack clear basis for setting, and it is necessary to explain the rationality of the data and avoid subjective setting.
4. Is the average weight of different UEEE categories only based on REAG project data? Clarify the identification standards and statistical processes for complex materials such as hazardous components.
5. Currently, a reuse factor of 0.5 (conservative) and 1.0 (optimistic) is uniformly used, without considering the differences in functional integrity among different UEEEs. Factors need to be set by product category and supplemented with research basis for factor determination.
6. The transportation emissions that are not included in the reuse process of the model need to be explained to what extent this simplification affects the results; Or quantify the fluctuation range of transportation emissions on GWP results through sensitivity analysis.
7. Chaotic chart numbering (such as the text mentioning "Figure 1 is a CPU location map", but the actual Figure 1 shows the proportion of UEEE type), and missing key information in the legend (such as scenes S1-S4 not clearly distinguishing years in the chart); Unified chart numbering is required, data source labeling should be supplemented, and the correspondence between chart titles and content should be corrected.
8. The existing limitations only refer to the "reuse factor assumption" and "data availability" in a general manner, requiring quantification of uncertainty (such as the magnitude of changes in GWP results when the reuse factor increases from 0.5 to 0.8); The impact of limitations in supplementing data sources on conclusions.
9. The statement 'reuse is the optimal environmental choice' in the conclusion is too absolute and needs to be limited to applicable scenarios; Policy recommendations need to be combined with Slovenia's actual situation and supplemented with actionable measures.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3, 

Thank you very much for your constructive and insightful feedback. We truly appreciate your feedback as this definitely helps us to significantly improve the quality of our manuscript. We fully acknowledge all points and have addressed them in the revised manuscript. 

I've attached a file for the detailed responses to each point of concern in the previous manuscript. 

Once again, we highly appreciate your insightful feedback and thank you for your consideration. 

Warm regards,

Souphaphone Soudachanh

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper responded to relevant questions and made some modifications, especially improving the expression of charts, which can be published.