Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Management of Municipal Solid Waste and Medical Waste: A Comparative Review of Selected Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examined six countries and summarized the pandemic's effects on municipal solid waste (MSW) and medical waste (MW) generation in terms of amount and composition, the SWM sector's challenges, and government or other SWM guidelines and management measures. Some meaningful conclusions have been obtained from this study. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

  In general, the paper is suitably written. However, there are some minor grammatical and punctuation errors. The text must be checked, edited, and corrected.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

We would like to extend our sincere appreciation for your valuable review of our manuscript. We are grateful for the positive feedback and constructive criticism provided by you. Your thorough and insightful comments have been instrumental in refining and improving the overall quality of the manuscript.

We greatly appreciate your attention to detail and expertise demonstrated in your review. We have carefully considered all of the concerns raised by you and have made the necessary revisions to the manuscript in accordance with the suggestions. We have thoroughly revised the paper to ensure that it presents a clear and impactful argument supported by rigorous research.

We have attached the updated version of the manuscript for your reference, which we believe effectively incorporates the revisions. Additionally, we have provided a detailed response to all of your comments. We hope that you will find the revisions satisfactory and that the paper now meets the high standards required for publication in this prestigious journal.

Once again, thank you for your invaluable input and for helping us to strengthen our work. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on the updated version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     There are many articles about COVID‐19 Pandemic on MSW management. It would be helpful if the paper could include a more critical analysis of the existing literature, discussing the strengths and weaknesses of previous studies.

2.     The paper lacks a clear description of the methodology used to collect and analyze data. It is important to provide information on the selection criteria for the countries included in the review, the sources of data, and the analytical techniques employed.

3.     The paper could provide more specific examples or case studies to illustrate the pandemic's impact on waste management in different countries.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of English language required. 

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

We would like to extend our sincere appreciation for your valuable review of our manuscript. We are grateful for the positive feedback and constructive criticism provided by you. Your thorough and insightful comments have been instrumental in refining and improving the overall quality of the manuscript.

We greatly appreciate your attention to detail and expertise demonstrated in your review. We have carefully considered all of the concerns raised by you and have made the necessary revisions to the manuscript in accordance with the suggestions. We have thoroughly revised the paper to ensure that it presents a clear and impactful argument supported by rigorous research.

We have attached the updated version of the manuscript for your reference, which we believe effectively incorporates the revisions. Additionally, we have provided a detailed response to all of your comments. We hope that you will find the revisions satisfactory and that the paper now meets the high standards required for publication in this prestigious journal.

Once again, thank you for your invaluable input and for helping us to strengthen our work. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on the updated version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript submitted to biomass is a good attempt, reasonably written and the data is technically organized. I suggest the following to be incorporated accordingly.

1. The manuscript's title does not accurately reflect the scope of the study as it currently implies a global analysis, yet only selected countries are evaluated. It should be revised for accuracy.

2. Additionally, the manuscript contains numerous typos and grammatical issues. For example, "transport and treatment" should be corrected to "transportation and treatment," and phrases like "such garbage collection" need to be clarified.

3. The keywords are overly extensive and may not be optimized for search engines, particularly the inclusion of country names.

4. In Section 2, Research Methodology, the selection process for the countries analyzed is unclear, as is the data collection and screening method. It should explicitly state the time period covered, specifying that it begins in 2020.

5. Table 2 is overly descriptive and should be condensed to include only quantitative data.

6. I recommend including a case study on a smaller country such as Bahrain. Significant research has been conducted there during the pandemic, and its data could provide comparative insights alongside other GCC countries. Discussing Bahrain could illustrate how smaller nations can serve as models for others, especially in terms of waste management during crises. The details of waste treatment under constrained conditions in Bahrain could offer valuable lessons on adjusting operational times in reactors during unusual situations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor fixings

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

We would like to extend our sincere appreciation for your valuable review of our manuscript. We are grateful for the positive feedback and constructive criticism provided by you. Your thorough and insightful comments have been instrumental in refining and improving the overall quality of the manuscript.

We greatly appreciate your attention to detail and expertise demonstrated in your review. We have carefully considered all of the concerns raised by you and have made the necessary revisions to the manuscript in accordance with the suggestions. We have thoroughly revised the paper to ensure that it presents a clear and impactful argument supported by rigorous research.

We have attached the updated version of the manuscript for your reference, which we believe effectively incorporates the revisions. Additionally, we have provided a detailed response to all of your comments. We hope that you will find the revisions satisfactory and that the paper now meets the high standards required for publication in this prestigious journal.

Once again, thank you for your invaluable input and for helping us to strengthen our work. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on the updated version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.        Ensure consistent usage of terminology, such as "solid waste" versus "municipal waste."

2.        The conclusions summarize the key findings and provide recommendations for future research.  However, the implications for practice could be emphasized more. Discuss how the research findings could inform policy or practical applications.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We would like to extend our sincere appreciation for your valuable review of our manuscript. Your thorough and insightful comments have been instrumental in refining and improving the overall quality of the manuscript.

We greatly appreciate your attention to detail and expertise demonstrated in your review. We have carefully considered all of the concerns raised by you and have made the necessary revisions to the manuscript in accordance with their suggestions. We have thoroughly revised the paper to ensure that it presents a clear and impactful argument supported by rigorous research.

We have attached the updated version of the manuscript for your reference, which we believe effectively incorporates the revisions. Additionally, we have provided a detailed response to each of the reviewers' comments below. We hope that you will find the revisions satisfactory and that the paper now meets the high standards required for publication in this prestigious journal.

Once again, thank you for your invaluable input and for helping us to strengthen our work. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on the updated version of the manuscript.

Regards,

Mohamed Mostafa

Author Response File: Author Response.docx