Review History


All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on August 16th, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on October 4th, 2021.
  • The first revision was submitted on November 8th, 2021 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on November 19th, 2021.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Nov 19, 2021 · Academic Editor

Accept

The revised version is fine.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Monika Mortimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

See additional comments

Experimental design

See additional comments

Validity of the findings

See additional comments

Additional comments

The authors responded to reviewers' concerns in a reasonable way. The manuscript can be accepted in present form.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Oct 4, 2021 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. The manuscript has been assessed by two reviewers. Reviewers indicated that the abstract, Introduction, Methods, Discussion etc. should be improved. I agree with this evaluation and I would, therefore, request for the manuscript to be revised accordingly.

Reviewer 2 has requested that you cite specific references. You may add them if you believe they are especially relevant. However, I do not expect you to include these citations, and if you do not include them, this will not influence my decision.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.  It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter.  Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

pass

Experimental design

pass

Validity of the findings

pass

Additional comments

This manuscript did statistical analysis the biodegradable household garbage resources and their nitrogen reservoirs in China. It’s great valuable dataset for the national source assessment. However, several key parameters are unclear or need provide in the text.
1. The text looks a data investigation. I suggested authors compare the results in China to other countries.
2. I suggested authors separate provinces to seven groups, e.g., north, south, east, central northwest, northeast, southwest of China and provided the per capita biodegradable household garbage resources in these seven regions.
3. I suggested authors provide the urban increase and rural decrease yearly rates of food waste, waste paper, wood chips and biodegradable household garbage among the study period. If it’s possible, these yearly rates can detail to seven regions. It can list in a Table.
4. L26-28, It’s not concluded from your result. I suggested author removed it from abstract.
5. L51-53, this sentence told us that biodegradable household garbage resources in China has reported several years ago. Why you reported it again? It should point out the different or novel to previous studies.
6. L75-76, It is conflict to L 51-53.
7. L95-96, The potential reasons for except these three regions should be point out.
8. L219-L220, This result is slight less than the data from Wu et al, 2018. What are the potential reasons?
9. The formula between GDP and food wastes should be showed in figure 5.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

This manuscript presents an interesting summary of the nitrogen reservoir of biodegradable household garbage in China, and further assesses the potential in replacing synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, by collecting the original data from multi-channel. This work is within the scope of the journal and the quality of the article is also well written. It can be considered to publish after moderate revision.

Experimental design

See detailed comments.

Validity of the findings

See detailed comments.

Additional comments

Detailed comments are as follows:
1. In abstract, the description of the research background and method is too much, even accounts for half of the abstract (Line 17-23). Moreover, the more presentation of specific key data in abstract is necessary (e.g., the temporal variations of the calculation results).
2. Line 51: “2.01 billion t a-1” should be “2.01×10^9 t a-1” (be consistent with the abstract). The presentation of data needs to be unified.
3. Line 58. The authors mentioned that “Nitrogen, an essential nutrient for plants growth, is the key element in the agricultural ecosystem”. Obviously, it is better to mention that areas with poor soil need more exogenous nitrogen as an essential nutrient, the two references below can support this.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.106883
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107027
4. Introduction: The authors mentioned briefly that nitrogen reservoir of the biodegradable components of household garbage in a whole country is not clear. Does this mean that the research topic of this paper is a completely new field? Maybe rarely reported in China, what about the other countries?It is recommended that the publications of this unique “nitrogen reservoir” be appropriately summarized and added to the introduction (perhaps a short paragraph).
5. Methods: An significant concern. How does the author make statistical calculations on the collected data from the China Statistical Yearbook, Web of Science, CNKI? These publications may provide a series of data, such as the total output of urban and rural food waste each year. What is the spatial scale of these data? Provincial scale or City scale?Whether the authors took the mean values of these data to calculate in section 2.2, 2.3, …… If the average values were selected, whether the data set has been tested for normal distribution?In the case of non-normal distribution, the average value is not suitable for calculating and reflecting the overall level, while the median value may be more suitable.
6. Section 3.5: The significant linear positive correlation between the GDP and the amount of food wastes of different provinces of China seems not very suitable here. How about the relationship between per capital GDP and the per capital discharge of food waste?
7. Discussion: It would be better to discuss more about the spatial scale differences of the potential of biodegradable household garbage of replacing synthetic nitrogen fertilizers.

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.