Next Article in Journal
Parental Involvement and Student Engagement: A Review of the Literature
Next Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Initial Carbon to Nitrogen Ratio on Kitchen Waste Composting Maturity
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring the Potential of Social Farmers’ Networking as a Leverage for Inclusive Tourism
Previous Article in Special Issue
Relationships among Physicochemical, Microbiological, and Parasitological Parameters, Ecotoxicity, and Biochemical Methane Potential of Pig Slurry
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Prioritization of Waste-to-Energy Technologies Associated with the Utilization of Food Waste

Sustainability 2023, 15(7), 5857; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075857
by Patricia Torres-Lozada 1,*, Pablo Manyoma-Velásquez 2 and Jenny Fabiana Gaviria-Cuevas 2,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Reviewer 4: Anonymous
Sustainability 2023, 15(7), 5857; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075857
Submission received: 1 February 2023 / Revised: 9 March 2023 / Accepted: 20 March 2023 / Published: 28 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Waste Management and Utilization)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article entitled as "Prioritization of waste-to-energy technologies associated with the utilization of food waste" discussed the identification and prioritization of the renewable energy (WtE) available alternatives based on the FW present in the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) of a Colombian municipality with separation at the source and selective collection, was used a systematic literature review and the prospective methods MIC-MAC and multicriteria analysis (AHP and TOPSIS), considering environmental, social, and technical aspects. The technologies identified were anaerobic digestion, gasification, incineration, biogas recovery from landfills, and pyrolysis (this last was excluded due to its greater potential for application with other types of substrates, such as plastic waste). The six sub-criteria identified and prioritized were social acceptability (36%), greenhouse gas emissions mitigated (16.17%), MSW reduction (15.83%), energy production (13.80%), technological maturity (12.95%) and electrical energy conversion efficiency (5.25%). The decreasing order of preferences were anaerobic digestion (78.2%), gasification (47.5%), incineration (27.4%) and biogas recovery from landfills (6.6%); the latter was the least desirable alternative (lower social acceptance and CO2 tons mitigated in relation to the other options).

Title is good

Abstract

Revise the abstract based on the following inputs

"renewable energy (WtE)", I believe authors mistakenly used short form of renewable energy as (WtE), it should be "waste-to-energy". Pl. check and revise

"FW"/MIC-MAC/(AHP and TOPSIS define abbreviations at their first usage.  Pl. check and revise in the whole manuscript

Keywords

Revise keywords by avoiding abbreviations

Introduction

The introduction is nicely provided in the manuscript. May like to add a new reference to the paragraph "The three main types of WtE technologies------high percentages of biodegradable organic matter and high moisture contents". Authors may consider citing the suggested reference i.e. 10.1007/978-981-15-4439-2_4 titled Industrial Methanogenesis: Biomethane Production from Organic Wastes for Energy Supplementation.

Further, it is suggested to incorporate more relevant articles on this topic and cite them in the manuscript suitably. 

Materials and Methods are discussed in detail.

Please improve the Fig. 1 Quality

Results and discussion are okay

The source of Table 3 could be properly cited as per the accepted format

The quality of Fig 3 could be improved further.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper uses MIC-MAC forward-looking method and AHP multi-criteria tool to analyze six relevant variables to determine the anaerobic digestion, gasification, incineration and recovery of biogas from landfill through the food waste utilization technology determined by the WtE principle. Some issues need to be clarified and solved.

1. Abstract needs to be deleted and rewritten to highlight the innovation and main conclusions of the paper.

2.  Figure 1 is not very eye-catching and fuzzy. It needs further optimization and reconstruction to highlight its characteristics.

3. How to verify the feasibility and accuracy of relevant methods, please give examples or explain clearly in the text.

4. Figure 3 is not easy to understand. Please reconstruct or replace it with a better description and explanation.

In general, the paper does not have many graphical results and explanations. Some more pictures and results are suggested to be added to support and discuss the conclusions of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Patricia et al.,  studied about the “Prioritization of waste-to-energy technologies associated with the utilization of food waste” It is interesting but the paper can be accepted for publication only after major revision. It is recommended that the following aspects be addressed by the authors.

1. I do need to properly connect the novelty of your study to the research literatures inorder to draw attention to the gap and what you intend to do with this paper.

2. Novelty and objective are not mentioned clearly in the introduction. Mention the novelty of the present research in comparison with the previous published article

3. Improve Fig. 1 which lacks clarity.

4. Explain in the methodology why this approach is appropriate and any potential drawbacks in it.

5. Conclusions should show clearly the quantitative results

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. In section 2 please write about the materials. 

2. More explanation is required for the equations.

3. Include a nomenclature section. 

4. Do statistical analysis of results. 

5.  Include the limitations and future scope of the present work. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

  • The current version is ready for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

no comments

Back to TopTop