Challenges and Strategies for Bio-Based and Biodegradable Plastic Waste Management in Europe
, Jelena Barbir 2,*, Lina Draudvilienė 1,*, Zhi Kai Chong 3, Kerstin Kuchta 3, Viktoria Voronova 4 and Walter Leal Filho 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled "Challenges and strategies for bio-based and biodegradable plastic waste management in Europe" investigated the challenges of bio-based and biodegradable plastics for waste management and the effectiveness of current plastic waste management strategies. The paper presents an interesting discussion concerning one of the most important global environmental issues. Moreover, the conclusions section sounds very well that contains all the main highlights, advantages, and main limitations altogether with the proposed solutions. The explanation of the phenomena observed is quite satisfactory whereas the text is fairly well written and exhibits an element of originality. Thus, I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript for publication in Sustainability.
Author Response
Thank you for the comments
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have done very good work on "Challenges and strategies for bio-based and biodegradable 2 plastic waste management in Europe",. A appreciate the author's work on mitigating plastic waste generation and recycling. The manuscript is well-written and structured, following suggestions must be incorporated to accept/publish the manuscript.
1. Consider other types of plastic waste also like PVC, HDPE, PET waste, etc.
2. Impact of Plastic/PVC waste on mother earth needs to be explained more in the Introduction.
3. A good number of research and review articles are available in various databases focusing on effect of plastic waste and recycling methods. Include those articles and elaborate on the literature review in the Introduction section or make it separate.
4. To what extent plastic waste/PVC waste can be minimized? Similarly, alternative approaches must be highlighted.
5. Numbers/charts on recycling plastic waste will not impact a good research article but showcase alternative methods and their possibilities. Nowadays it is hard to find alternatives for Plastic/PVC waste.
6. Compare the results with available literature with proper justification.
7. Modify the conclusions by considering the above suggestions as well.
8. Include at least 6-8 references from SUSTAINABILITY (Submitted Journal).
9. Incorporate the following references to enrich your research in the revised submission.
A) Manjunatha, M., Seth, D., Balaji, K. V. G. D., & Chilukoti, S. (2021). Influence of PVC waste powder and silica fume on strength and microstructure properties of concrete: An experimental study. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 15, e00610.
B) Manjunatha, M., Seth, D., Balaji, K. V. G. D., & Bharath, A. (2022). Engineering properties and environmental impact assessment of green concrete prepared with PVC waste powder: A step towards sustainable approach. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 17, e01404.
Author Response
Thank you for the comments
Point 1: Consider other types of plastic waste also like PVC, HDPE, PET waste, etc..
Response 1: Section 4 of the article addresses also conventional plastic waste including PVC, HDPE and PET and potentially their biobased versions. A clarifying sentence was added in Section 3.
Point 2: Impact of Plastic/PVC waste on mother earth needs to be explained more in the Introduction.
Response 2: The impacts of plastic waste on the climate, environment, and human health were added in the introduction.
Point 3: A good number of research and review articles are available in various databases focusing on effect of plastic waste and recycling methods. Include those articles and elaborate on the literature review in the Introduction section or make it separate.
Response 3: Exemplary review papers were added in the introduction section.
Point 4: To what extent plastic waste/PVC waste can be minimized? Similarly, alternative approaches must be highlighted.
Response 4: The bio-based plastics are named as one of the alternatives for Plastic/PVC waste. The prevalence of biobased plastics and plastics are presented in section 3. The latest data are presented in the text.
Point 5: Numbers/charts on recycling plastic waste will not impact a good research article but showcase alternative methods and their possibilities. Nowadays it is hard to find alternatives for Plastic/PVC waste.
Response 5: In section 4.1. is added: The presence and type of bioplastics in the European waste stream will highly depend on the market penetration in each application area. Fig. 2 showed a trend of increasing amount as well as the share of biodegradable plastics produced, which are used mainly in packaging [21]. Taking into account the high share of packaging in the waste stream, integration is thus particularly needed in the packaging waste management system for a holistic implementation of bioplastics.
Point 6: Compare the results with available literature with proper justification.
Response 6: Discussion part added to the conclusion section
Point 7: Modify the conclusions by considering the above suggestions as well
Response 7: Conclusion section was modified
Point 8: Include at least 6-8 references from SUSTAINABILITY (Submitted Journal).
Response 8: Six references have been included from Sustainability.
Point 9: Incorporate the following references to enrich your research in the revised submission.
- A) Manjunatha, M., Seth, D., Balaji, K. V. G. D., & Chilukoti, S. (2021). Influence of PVC waste powder and silica fume on strength and microstructure properties of concrete: An experimental study. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 15, e00610.
- B) Manjunatha, M., Seth, D., Balaji, K. V. G. D., & Bharath, A. (2022). Engineering properties and environmental impact assessment of green concrete prepared with PVC waste powder: A step towards sustainable approach. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 17, e01404.
Response 9: The named references have been incorporated.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Journal of Sustainability - MDPI
Challenges and strategies for bio-based and biodegradable 2 plastic waste management in Europe”
This article brings new interesting perspectives and relevant information about the identified four main factors that influence bio-based and biodegradable plastics market and the three main barriers of the waste management of post-consumer waste coming from bio-based and biodegradable plastics. The main three factors are macroeconomic (crude oil prices, building on GDP and feedstock costs), regulatory (taxes, subsidies and bans), technological (scale effect, learning rates and production costs) and social (awareness, customer’s attitude and switching intention). The three main barriers are the small market size, regulatory framework and lack of information. However, in the assumptions used to estimate the bio-based and biodegradable plastics market behavior there is room for improvement in this paper, using a stronger theoretical framework to validate that economic, regulatory, technological and social factors are significantly defining the future behavior of the bio-based and biodegradable plastic market. I am providing several general and specific suggestions below in the form of notes, while also asking to make it more reader-friendly.
GENERAL COMMENTS
In the paper, the use of prospective analysis is helping to realize that not all the bio-based plastics are biodegradable, and not all biodegradable plastics are bio-based, while evaluating the effectiveness of the current plastic waste management strategies of bio-based and biodegradable plastics. Efficiency is a very broad term specially if you are not defining the qualities and quantities that you are optimizing, I think that the term you need to use in the paper is the “business performance”, because it is what you are referring all along the manuscript.
A material and methods section is required in the manuscript, in order to figure in a more clear way from where you are getting the date to get into the proposed conclusions, recommendations and market estimations.
A full language proofreading review is required to improve the quality of the manuscript.
The conclusions about the standardized legally binding identification systems observed in the section 4, should be highlighted in the conclusions and even stand out in the Abstract in regards of its overall relevance for the aims of this paper.
Conclusions section needs to be reformulated because it is not clear and it does not answer clearly the research question.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Abstract
The last two sentences of the Abstract needs to be reviewed “commingled” and the concept effective is very broad and hard to grasp will be better to use business performance or describe it in detail.
Prevalence of plastics and bio-based plastics
In Figure 1, the graph does not correspond with the referred quantities. 2019 has 1.952 and in the graph, it shows 2.111, in the same range as 2020.
The forecast of bio-based plastics
In the line 141 and 142 the use of system dynamic models in the meso-scale analysis of bio-based industrial symbiosis should also be referred as a relevant part of the state of the art, include the paper published by Morales, M.E., Lhuillery, S., Ghobakhloo, M., Circularity Effect in the Viability of Bio-Based Industrial Symbiosis: Tackling extraordinary events in value chains. Journal of Cleaner Production (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131387 as an example, it also worth it to mention it in Line 449, when talking about the biorefinery potential in the bioeconomy.
Line 151 mention risk reduction scenario as synonym of de-risking, both refer to the same concept but using different wording terms, therefore it does not contribute to the clarity and understanding of the idea.
Plastic waste main sources and management
Line 253-254, the authors mention that recycling techniques have the least CO2 emissions rate, could you provide the sources of this statement. Is the previous claim true for at all cases? Even less than reduction or reuse/refurbishment strategies in production process?
Final remarks and writing or spelling requirements
Line 125 and 126, industrial could be replaced by “industry”
Line 138, 139, 148, 149, 187, 249, 337-339, 343, 378, 479 and 490 the sentences are convoluted and needs to be rewritten.
Line 207, 263 and 502, commingled is written with only one “m”.
In line 226 and 227, the sentence needs to be reframed. Word face is repeated twice.
Line 351 could be reframed into “aiming to reduce the waste generation”
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for the comments
Point 1: In the paper, the use of prospective analysis is helping to realize that not all the bio-based plastics are biodegradable, and not all biodegradable plastics are bio-based, while evaluating the effectiveness of the current plastic waste management strategies of bio-based and biodegradable plastics. Efficiency is a very broad term specially if you are not defining the qualities and quantities that you are optimizing, I think that the term you need to use in the paper is the “business performance”, because it is what you are referring all along the manuscript.
Response 1: The term "Efficiency" is abandoned in this article
The title of section 4 is changed “Waste management of fossil-based and bio-based plastics in Europe”
Point 2: A material and methods section is required in the manuscript, in order to figure in a more clear way from where you are getting the date to get into the proposed conclusions, recommendations and market estimations.
Response 2: The new section of methodological approach has been provided
Point 3: A full language proofreading review is required to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Response 3 The text has been proof read.
Point 4: The conclusions about the standardized legally binding identification systems observed in the section 4, should be highlighted in the conclusions and even stand out in the Abstract in regards of its overall relevance for the aims of this paper.
Response 4: Conclusion section and abstract are reformulated.
Point 5: Conclusions section needs to be reformulated because it is not clear and it does not answer clearly the research question.
Response 5: Conclusion section is reformulated
Point 6: The last two sentences of the Abstract needs to be reviewed “commingled” and the concept effective is very broad and hard to grasp will be better to use business performance or describe it in detail.
Response 6: This has been addressed
Point 7: In Figure 1, the graph does not correspond with the referred quantities. 2019 has 1.952 and in the graph, it shows 2.111, in the same range as 2020.
Response 7: The Fig.2 has been modified according to the latest data.
The data has been corrected based on the source: “2.087 million tonnes in 2020 to 2.417 million tonnes in 2021 and that represents a 13.65 percent increase
Point 8: In the line 141 and 142 the use of system dynamic models in the meso-scale analysis of bio-based industrial symbiosis should also be referred as a relevant part of the state of the art, include the paper published by Morales, M.E., Lhuillery, S., Ghobakhloo, M., Circularity Effect in the Viability of Bio-Based Industrial Symbiosis: Tackling extraordinary events in value chains. Journal of Cleaner Production (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131387 as an example, it also worth it to mention it in Line 449, when talking about the biorefinery potential in the bioeconomy.
Response 8: In the text was added: “However, according to [30] is very important to choose System dynamics (SD) model, which is worthy for decision-makers to design strategies.”
And mentioned in the section 5.
Point 9: Line 151 mention risk reduction scenario as synonym of de-risking, both refer to the same concept but using different wording terms, therefore it does not contribute to the clarity and understanding of the idea.
Response 9: The text was modified
Point 10: Line 253-254, the authors mention that recycling techniques have the least CO2 emissions rate, could you provide the sources of this statement. Is the previous claim true for at all cases? Even less than reduction or reuse/refurbishment strategies in production process?
Response 10: The source was provided. The recycling techniques have the least CO2 emissions in comparison to incineration.
Point 11: Line 125 and 126, industrial could be replaced by “industry”.
Response 11: This has been done
Point 12: Line 138, 139, 148, 149, 187, 249, 337-339, 343, 378, 479 and 490 the sentences are convoluted and needs to be rewritten.
Response 12: The text has been proof read and also many sections have been rewritten
Point 13: Line 207, 263 and 502, commingled is written with only one “m”.
Response 13: This has been solved.
Point 14: In line 226 and 227, the sentence needs to be reframed. Word face is repeated twice.
Response 14: Revised.
Point 15: . Line 351 could be reframed into “aiming to reduce the waste generation
Response 14: This has been solved
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
There are several comments required to be undertaken by the authors before it could be accepted. Some recommendations on how to improve the manuscript is offered below:
1. The abstract should have context and background, motivation, hypothesis, methods, results, conclusions. Try to quantify the importance of your discovery in the abstract (clarify how will your work contribute to the research field).
2. Some new studies should be added to the introduction section to address the latest findings in the field, especially situations related to plastic waste and their impacts to human health. Author can fill that gaps with 10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115758.
3. Please, provide a more rigorous synthesis of your data and reveal new mechanisms that will allow indicating novel theoretical findings.
4. Instead of reporting old Directives/Decisions which was previously published, I suggest that the authors should use the most recent Directives and linked it with the synthesize message of their investigation to place the work in context.
5. There are some recommendations offered in conclusion section that seems a bit disconnected from the study itself. For instance, the authors claim "European Union member states shows that economic benefits, dissemination and adaptation of good practices…". This seems more like general opinions of others and not as conclusions drawn from the results of the study.
6. Avoid repeating statements in the conclusion section. Instead, point out the most important conclusions and it should only contain the SUMMARY of significant outcomes.
Author Response
Thank you for the comments
Point 1: The abstract should have context and background, motivation, hypothesis, methods, results, conclusions. Try to quantify the importance of your discovery in the abstract (clarify how will your work contribute to the research field).
Response 1: Abstract is reformulated
Point 2: Some new studies should be added to the introduction section to address the latest findings in the field, especially situations related to plastic waste and their impacts to human health. Author can fill that gaps with 10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115758.
Response 2: The impacts of plastic waste on the climate, the environment and human health were added in the introduction.
Point 3: Please, provide a more rigorous synthesis of your data and reveal new mechanisms that will allow indicating novel theoretical findings.
Response 3: We have reviewed the data provided in Section 3 and 4 and added valuable additional insights on resource use as well as waste management impact. These can be seen in Section 3, as well in Section 4.
Point 4: Instead of reporting old Directives/Decisions which was previously published, I suggest that the authors should use the most recent Directives and linked it with the synthesize message of their investigation to place the work in context.
Response 4: The text was modified
Point 5: There are some recommendations offered in conclusion section that seems a bit disconnected from the study itself. For instance, the authors claim "European Union member states shows that economic benefits, dissemination and adaptation of good practices…". This seems more like general opinions of others and not as conclusions drawn from the results of the study.
Response 5: Conclusion section was modified
Point 6: Avoid repeating statements in the conclusion section. Instead, point out the most important conclusions and it should only contain the SUMMARY of significant outcomes.
Response 6: Conclusion section was modified
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
In general, the authors have addressed some of the reviewer’s comments. Although the manuscript can be modified further to avoid similarity between the present study and previous study published. Please consider the following suggestions below for the improvement of your manuscript:
1. Some of the introductory parts seem to be unoriginal, having appeared in previous work. The first paragraph was directly (without modification) copied from “Consumer attitudes and concerns with bioplastics use: An international study” and “Packaging plastics in the circular economy” Fourth and Sixth paragraphs, were copied directly from authors previous work “Consumer attitudes and concerns with bioplastics use: An international study” and “Solutions and Integrated Strategies for the Control and Mitigation of Plastic and Microplastic Pollution” However, try and synthesize the "message" of those papers to place your work in context, and make sure it flows.
2. In page 2; line 75-76: Author reported that “For bioplastics, Lamberti et al. [17] discussed technically the recycling routes available for bioplastics” The message here wasn’t clear, because what did authors find out in their results?
3. Most of the Directives you reported were old, I suggest that the authors should use the most recent Directives and link it with their investigation.
4. In addition, the situation of plastic waste in some countries is very serious, authors should mention the situation of such countries to highlight the importance of your work.
5. The plastic pollution generated, and health issues associated with its toxicity are relatively important for investigation. In your study, add a paragraph (without direct copying) that describes the genesis of toxicity from plastic wastes and link the situations with their implications to human health. Some of these issues were recently addressed in section 4 of the article suggested in the previous comment #2, and I recommend that you read that section and cite it.
Author Response
Thank you for the comments
Point 1: Some of the introductory parts seem to be unoriginal, having appeared in previous work. The first paragraph was directly (without modification) copied from “Consumer attitudes and concerns with bioplastics use: An international study” and “Packaging plastics in the circular economy” Fourth and Sixth paragraphs, were copied directly from authors previous work “Consumer attitudes and concerns with bioplastics use: An international study” and “Solutions and Integrated Strategies for the Control and Mitigation of Plastic and Microplastic Pollution” However, try and synthesize the "message" of those papers to place your work in context, and make sure it flows.
Response 1: Thank you for the comment. The introduction has been modified and the issues mentioned above have been addressed.
Point 2: .In page 2; line 75-76: Author reported that “For bioplastics, Lamberti et al. [17] discussed technically the recycling routes available for bioplastics” The message here wasn’t clear, because what did authors find out in their results?
Response 2: Thank you for the comment. We added a synthesizing sentence.
Point 3: Most of the Directives you reported were old, I suggest that the authors should use the most recent Directives and link it with their investigation.
Response 3: Thank you for the comment. We modified the text and the lates EU General Report and rules were adde
Point 4: In addition, the situation of plastic waste in some countries is very serious, authors should mention the situation of such countries to highlight the importance of your work
Response 4: Thank you for the comment. Added to the introduction section
Point 5:. The plastic pollution generated, and health issues associated with its toxicity are relatively important for investigation. In your study, add a paragraph (without direct copying) that describes the genesis of toxicity from plastic wastes and link the situations with their implications to human health. Some of these issues were recently addressed in section 4 of the article suggested in the previous comment #2, and I recommend that you read that section and cite it.
Response 5: Thank you for the comment. Added to the introduction part.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
Accept in present form
