Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

in this paper you present the evaluation of the environmental impacts and costs of panels produced starting from Polyethylene Recycling Waste. The work is interesting but what is missing is a clear explanation regarding the origin of these wastes and the production process. Reading paragraph 4.1.1 is not clear which is the exact composition of PRW. Is it 71% paper and 29% plastics, of which 27% is 284 polyethylene (PE) and 2% is mixed plastics? If it is so you should explain clearly and you should also specify which is the amount of PRW in 1 ton of LDPE wastes.

The second aspect that should be considered regards the equivalence of the considered products. I am not expecting that 100PRW has the same mechanical properties of 80PRW20PE and therefore the results can not be directly compared. Please consider this aspect and apply a correction factor to compare the different materials according to their mechanical properties if they are not equivalent. If they are equivalent you have to clearly explain how.

I suggest that you try to create a better connection between the production of materials and the evaluation of the environmental impact otherwise thw work seems very theoretical without the support of real data. 

In the methods it missing an explanation of how the normalization factors were chosen.

Finally I believe that the work could benefit of including a picture of the panels and also of a Table listing their main technical features.

Some minor comments:

line 308: is originates 

Table 1:  the name of some impact categories is truncated

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is factually correct. It is scientifically and functionally current. It contains a novel element. The article focuses on the growing challenges of sustainable development.
The study assessed the environmental and economic performance of boards produced
from various proportions of recycled polyethylene waste from
a Portuguese plastics recycling company. The study skillfully utilized an integrated life-cycle assessment approach and life-cycle costing. The environmental impact assessment of the production of boards from PRW was conducted in accordance with
the International Standards for LCA, ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006.
The article is exploratory in nature and proposes a theoretically grounded framework and empirical validation. The environmental impact was assessed accurately. The purpose of the article was well-defined: to assess the environmental and economic impacts of PB production with various proportions of recycled polyethylene waste (PRW) from a Portuguese plastics recycling company. This goal was achieved. Unfortunately, it is missing from the abstract. The analysis and conclusions are correct. The literature is generally accurate. These are positive aspects of the study.
Suggestions for improvement:
1) Please include the purpose of the study in the abstract. Could you also add: "Who will benefit from the research results?"
2) In my opinion, it is advisable to include a summary table of previous research in the analyzed area in Chapter 1.
3) In Figure 1, please provide a clearer description of the "x" axis. Please also consider increasing the introductory text preceding the figure.
4) The table number should be cited in the text preceding the table. (See Table 1.)
5) Please provide a description of the axes in Figure 2.
6) The authors argue that, to maintain consistency with the majority of studies in the literature [25, 29, 38, 44, 45], an LCA approach was adopted. Why? Please provide a brief justification.
7) I suggest not ending the subchapter with a table (e.g., Tables 7 and 8). I suggest adding a concluding text.
8) In my opinion, a discussion section is missing. I suggest adding such a section to the study.

Overall, I give the reviewed article a positive rating and believe it could be published after the suggested improvements have been implemented.

I don't feel qualified to judge the English language and style.
Prześlij opinię

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigates the environmental and economic performance of circular economy practices in furniture production by assessing boards made with different proportions of polyethylene recycling waste (PRW) and other materials. Using an integrated Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) approach, the study compares multiple board formulations at a pre-industrial scale. The results demonstrate that waste-based formulations offer lower environmental impacts and better cost-efficiency, highlighting the importance of material composition in sustainable furniture production.

Recommendation: Major Revision

Additional Note: Detailed comments are provided in the attachment.

     

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for considering my comments. The work was improved and can be accepted.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accepted