Using Spatial Analysis to Design a Solid Waste Collection System
, MarÃa Neftalà Rojas-Valencia 2, Hugo Alejandro Nájera-Aguilar 1, Rubén Fernando Gutiérrez-Hernández 3 and Carlos Manuel GarcÃa-Lara 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article seems to deal with routing optimization for waste collection. However, the topic of the article is a bit confusing. The improvement over the wste collection routing is briefly presented in Section 3.3. Please try to reorganize the article and better highlight your contributions. You can explicitly add the contributions of the article in Section 1.
Then other minor comments:
This sentence need to be impoved: "Based on the procedures established by the technical standards NMX-AA-015-1985 133 [30], NMX-AA-019-1985 [31], NMX-AA-022-1985 [32] and Araiza et al. [33], the waste 134 composition (Figure 2a), as well as the volumetric weights (Figure 2b) and waste produc-135 tion rates (Figure 2c) of the study area were determined, particularly as regards House-136 hold Sources."
Avoid Sections without subheadings, e.g., Section 2 and Section 2.3.
Fig. 2 exceeds the textwidth.
How did you determine correction factor of Eq. (11)?
Eq. (12) is out of place in the listing.
Variable definitions of page 7 must be listed as equations. Please respect the textwidth. Please respect textwidth as a genral rule. There are many Tables, figures and equations exceeding this width.
Replace N/A in Table 2 with "-"
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe introduction needs more details on the research's significance, contribution, and challenges.
The literature review is very limited (one paragraph) and should include additional relevant studies.
In the results section, comparisons with existing research are necessary to support the findings of the current study.
The manuscript should clearly state the difference between its methodology and the existing methods, which is currently unclear.
Most of the content in Section 3.2 is recommended to be relocated to the methodology section.
Adding a detailed cost analysis of the proposed versus current scenarios and a limitations section would greatly enhance the study's value.
A limitations section is highly recommended.
Line [78-79]: Discuss in the limitations section how the methodology may be specifically applicable to areas near the study area, addressing potential constraints.
Line [401- 403]: Statement not clear.
Line [466]: POBE was not defined previously.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo further comments or modifications required.
