Recycling of Post-Consumer Packaging Materials into New Food Packaging Applications—Critical Review of the European Approach and Future Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript provides an insight into the evaluation of post-consumer recyclates applied in direct contact to food. Authors also present, explain and discuss a safety assessment criteria as developed by the European Food Safety Authority.

The manuscript is quite technical and comprehensively deals with a very current and interesting topic.

In the various sections the topics are well introduced and explained as well as the relevant regulations for recycling.

Tables and figures are correctly reported and explained in the text.

I believe the work is well written and deserves publication.

However, I ask the authors to:

• introduce and better organize section 4 that is very poor.
• correct line 512.

Author Response

reviewer 1

The manuscript provides an insight into the evaluation of post-consumer recyclates applied in direct contact to food. Authors also present, explain and discuss a safety assessment criteria as developed by the European Food Safety Authority.

The manuscript is quite technical and comprehensively deals with a very current and interesting topic.

In the various sections the topics are well introduced and explained as well as the relevant regulations for recycling.

Tables and figures are correctly reported and explained in the text.

I believe the work is well written and deserves publication.

However, I ask the authors to:

    introduce and better organize section 4 that is very poor.

    correct line 512.

Authors reply: Dear reviewer, thanks for your review. The manuscript was revised according to your recommendations.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is excellent organized and prepared.

Please check an editorial side e.g:

line 123 - [19-24] instead [19,20.....24]

line 192-  Regulation 282/2008 together with the criteria listed in Plastics Regulation 10/2011 (see below). - I think more clear will be write "see in p.3.2.)

Author Response

reviewer 2

The article is excellent organized and prepared.

Please check an editorial side e.g:

line 123 - [19-24] instead [19,20.....24]

line 192-  Regulation 282/2008 together with the criteria listed in Plastics Regulation 10/2011 (see below). - I think more clear will be write "see in p.3.2.)

Authors reply: Dear reviewer, thanks for your review. The manuscript was revised according to your recommendations.