Value Retention Options in Circular Economy: Issues and Challenges of LED Lamp Preprocessing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

In the following paragraphs, I would like to summarize my opinion on the paper submitted.

Abstract and references:

The purpose of the research is clear, the abstract clearly defines the topic and the problem, but the part related to the methodological description is missing here. The final thought of Abstract is particularly well worded, and the presentation of the conclusions already sells the article. The scientific references used are appropriate for presenting the topic, but most of the key references are not included in the literature. Circular economic studies and publications in the reusing field are missing. I recommend some publications to expand the literature, but I suggest adding at least 10-15 additional references to properly explore the topic. The use of certified Q1 and Q2 publications is recommended.

Suggested papers for the topic:

Chen, W.-S.; Hsu, L.-L.; Wang, L.-P. Recycling the GaN Waste from LED Industry by Pressurized Leaching Method. Metals 2018, 8, 861.

Horvath, B.; Bahna, M.; Fogarassy, C. The Ecological Criteria of Circular Growth and the Rebound Risk of Closed Loops. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2961.

Horvath, B.; Mallinguh, E.; Fogarassy, C. Designing Business Solutions for Plastic Waste Management to Enhance Circular Transitions in Kenya. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1664.

Tam, V.W.-Y.; Lu, W. Construction Waste Management Profiles, Practices, and Performance: A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis in Four Countries. Sustainability 2016, 8, 190.

Liu, H.; Yao, Z. Research on Mixed and Classification Simulation Models of Medical Waste—A Case Study in Beijing, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4226.

Introduction:

The authors explain the problem logically, the purpose of the research is clear, but the "research question" is not mentioned in the introductory chapter. It is recommended that scientific questions should be answered at the end of the introductory chapter. The Discussion section contains several technical details that should be discussed in the introductory section, which would help you to understand the details of the issue. I recommend restructuring the chapters.

Methods:

The methodological part is not a scientific description of the studies nor does it contain any scientific methodology. The result is not acceptable in this form either, since the method can be called a simple survey. To compare scenario 1,2,3, I suggest a minimum of a benchmarking study that could be evaluated with a SWOT analysis. If more data is available, then using an AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) analysis to solve multiple aspects of decision making, this method can perform a more serious examination.

Results:

The presentation of data is good, the charts are well-structured works. Professional content is extremely good. However, more details of the results section should be moved to the methodology section. Because these technical descriptions are related to measurements. And in the discussion section, we can find more details that are the result of the analysis.

Discussion:

I propose to modify the content of the paper as discussed above in the Discussion. Further note that many details of the disassembly process have been completely redundant in the Discussion, and I suggest shortening this section. I mentioned earlier that in this chapter we can find more content details that should be included in the results.

The Conclusions chapter is disproportionately short when compared to the Discussion section, so I suggest reordering the content here too.

Overall opinion:

The research contains very exciting and novel approaches, but in this form, the study cannot be called a scientific study, so the study results are mostly the results of a survey. It is recommended to use a scientific method to investigate the problem raised. After the suggested changes and corrections, I definitely recommend publishing the article.

Strengths:

The presentation of professional details is credible and thorough. The article deals with a very good topic, the topicality of the problem is unquestionable, and the article can be very popular after its publication.

Weaknesses:

The methodological errors and shortcomings call into question the scientific nature of the article. It is recommended that a scientific methodology be used to compare each scenario and the assessment of options should be presented with at least one swot analysis. The scientific literature should be expanded in the field of the circular economy.

Best wishes, 

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The issue of light bulbs continues to be a significant problem, even in developed countries. In developing countries, there are still serious problems of environmental contamination due to the incorrect disposal of bulbs.

The problem presented by the Circular Economy in the present work is exciting; however, it needs some attention to be published.

Minor:

1. Replace the pronoun in the first person for the third person, so that it is impersonal.

2. Correct the organization of the title.

Larger:

Explain better the methodology for choosing lamp types and, if possible, mention the correlation between the EU countries.

2. Figure 9 was confusing. I suggest that it be expanded.

3. Citing markings of lamps in scientific work does not seem correct to me. I recommend replacing it with lamp type 1, 2, 3 etc.

4. Rewrite the conclusions. They should contain the meaning of the work as a whole.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

please include details on the economic feasibility of the VROs, so that there will be facts to present for the comparison of the VROs

please explain the findings in relation to eco-clustering and the possibility of global reverse networks

please integrate a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the VROs presented in the study

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, 

Congratulation to your hard work! I believe the manuscript has been significantly improved and now warrants publication in Sustainability Journal! 

Reviewer

Reviewer 2 Report

Reading the paper, I found that the authors responded to all the reviewers' suggestions.