Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons

Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504" }, "headline": "Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons", "datePublished": "2024-05-17T15:04:26", "dateModified": "2026-01-14T10:29:48", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Hayk Minasyan" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": "Plastic waste accumulation is a global environmental issue. Current methods (recycling, incineration, landfilling, etc.) are not a sustainable long-term solution and so far they cannot prevent continuous accumulation of plastic waste worldwide. This article introduces the concept of deep geological disposal (DGD) of plastic waste as an alternative strategy. The concept principally differs from the traditional landfilling. In the latter, plastic waste is affected by chemical, physical, and microbial factors that cause plastic fragmentation and environmental leakage. On the contrary, DGD isolates plastic waste in abandoned mines, quarries and caves, ensuring safe long-term containment of the waste and the possibility of its reuse as a raw material in the future. Another advantage of DGD is that these geological structures usually have transport infrastructure and storage facilities, and, as a result, they offer a more controlled environment with reduced risk of leachate, microplastic dispersion, and surface pollution. The paper discusses the practical, economic, and environmental aspects of the concept of DGD of plastic waste. The proposal does not offer to replace other available mechanisms of plastic waste management, it presents DGD as a complementary and potentially effective method for addressing non-recyclable and mismanaged plastic waste worldwide." } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504", "name": "Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons" } } ] } Home Browse Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Minasyan H. Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149702.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Opinion Article Revised Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] Hayk Minasyan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8252-7927 Hayk Minasyan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8252-7927 PUBLISHED 14 Jan 2026 Author details Author details Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Yerevan, Armenia Hayk Minasyan Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Plastic waste accumulation is a global environmental issue. Current methods (recycling, incineration, landfilling, etc.) are not a sustainable long-term solution and so far they cannot prevent continuous accumulation of plastic waste worldwide. This article introduces the concept of deep geological disposal (DGD) of plastic waste as an alternative strategy. The concept principally differs from the traditional landfilling. In the latter, plastic waste is affected by chemical, physical, and microbial factors that cause plastic fragmentation and environmental leakage. On the contrary, DGD isolates plastic waste in abandoned mines, quarries and caves, ensuring safe long-term containment of the waste and the possibility of its reuse as a raw material in the future. Another advantage of DGD is that these geological structures usually have transport infrastructure and storage facilities, and, as a result, they offer a more controlled environment with reduced risk of leachate, microplastic dispersion, and surface pollution. The paper discusses the practical, economic, and environmental aspects of the concept of DGD of plastic waste. The proposal does not offer to replace other available mechanisms of plastic waste management, it presents DGD as a complementary and potentially effective method for addressing non-recyclable and mismanaged plastic waste worldwide. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Plastic, waste, waste management, geological disposal. Corresponding Author(s) Hayk Minasyan ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Hayk Minasyan Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2026 Minasyan H. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Minasyan H. Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149702.3 ) First published: 17 May 2024, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149702.1 ) Latest published: 14 Jan 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149702.3 ) Revised Amendments from Version 2 The revisions have been integrated as follows: into the Abstract — to immediately frame DGD as a conceptual and complementary strategy into the Introduction, to clarify the scale of the problem and the positioning of the proposed method into the Methods section — to state explicitly that the article is conceptual in nature into the Discussion — additional text has been included addressing risks, leachate formation, and geological stability Before the Conclusion — a concise paragraph on economic and policy aspects has been inserted into the Conclusion — to emphasise that DGD is not “burial”, but secure long-term storage of a potentially useful resource The revisions have been integrated as follows: into the Abstract — to immediately frame DGD as a conceptual and complementary strategy into the Introduction, to clarify the scale of the problem and the positioning of the proposed method into the Methods section — to state explicitly that the article is conceptual in nature into the Discussion — additional text has been included addressing risks, leachate formation, and geological stability Before the Conclusion — a concise paragraph on economic and policy aspects has been inserted into the Conclusion — to emphasise that DGD is not “burial”, but secure long-term storage of a potentially useful resource See the author's detailed response to the review by Win Cowger See the author's detailed response to the review by Magdalena Vaverková See the author's detailed response to the review by Atik Fayshal See the author's detailed response to the review by Dr. Melanie Bergmann READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction While the global volume of plastic waste is large, the DGD concept is not intended to accommodate all plastic waste. It is instead proposed for selected fractions that currently lack viable long-term management options, functioning alongside recycling, energy recovery, and other strategies. Over the past 70 years, more than 10 billion tons of plastics have been produced ( Geyer et al., 2017 ). A 2025 study (based on 2022 data) found that 27.9% was recycled, 34% was incinerated, 40% went to landfills, and 11% was mismanaged (i.e. littered or dumped into the environment) ( Houssini et al., 2025 ). More than 10 million tons of plastics enter the oceans annually ( Carney Almroth and Eggert, 2019 , Chassignet et al., 2021 ). There are more than 170 trillion plastic particles floating in the oceans ( Eriksen et al., 2023 ). The majority of plastic mass (90-98%) is contained in the large plastic items (>25 mm). Microplastics (<5 mm) and plastics between 5 and 25 mm form the small remainder ( Kaandorp et al., 2023 ). Currently, global annual plastic production is approximately 348 million tons ( Yu et al., 2022 ). Nearly 80% of the total plastic waste is accumulated in landfills/open dumps and in the natural environment ( Yadav et al., 2020 ). As landfills are relatively closely sealed reactors with complex biochemical reactions and physical changes, plastic waste buried in landfills is subjected to more severe environmental conditions such as leachate, high salinity, fluctuating temperature, gas generation, physical stress, and microbial degradation. All the above factors may lead to the fragmentation of plastics to microplastics (MPs), and small plastic debris can be carried out by the discharge of leachate ( Wojnowska-Baryła et al., 2022 ). The ultimate fate of plastic in landfills is a major concern, particularly as there is no established method for determining whether plastic degrades, biodegrades, or is recalcitrant. The amount of plastic waste continues to increase progressively, and this waste is increasing the land and water surfaces ( Singh et al., 2023 ). The accumulation of mismanaged plastic waste (MPW) in the environment is a global concern ( Lebreton and Andrady, 2019 ). Therefore, along with the already practiced approaches (recycling, incineration, landfill, etc.), new approaches to plastic waste management are necessary. This paper proposes a new concept: deep geological disposal (DGD) of plastic waste as a long-term strategy. It has many advantages over landfills. Unlike landfills, DGD provides deep isolation and sealing of plastic waste. This prevents degradation and fragmentation of plastic under the influence of environmental factors and eliminates environmental pollution. In contrast to landfills, where plastic waste is buried (disposed of ) together with other municipal solid waste (MSW), the DGD involves disposing only selective plastic waste. This waste, currently unsuitable for recycling, may tomorrow become a raw material for future technologies. Conceptually, this waste is rethought not just as waste, but as a potential material for future use. In this way, DGD transforms the problem of plastic pollution from an intractable environmental problem to the storage of hydrocarbons as the feedstock of the future. This article outlines the rationale, feasibility and implications of this unconventional but potentially transformative strategy. Methods The purpose of the present work is to introduce and conceptually frame DGD rather than to provide a full feasibility, engineering, or cost-benefit assessment. These are identified as necessary components of future research programs. We used Google Scholar, ResearchGate, ScienceDirect, SciSpace, Scopus, PubMed, Consensus, and Core search engines to determine the availability of deep geological plastic waste disposal in the scientific literature. We used long-tail keywords such as “deep geological disposal plastic waste”, “deep geological disposal”, and “geological disposal plastic”, and short-tail keywords “geological disposal” and “plastic waste.” Results search of the top search engines (Google Scholar, ResearchGate, ScienceDirect, SciSpace, Scopus, PubMed, Consensus, and Core) using both long- and short-tail keywords revealed no articles dedicated to the deep geological disposal of plastic waste. Therefore, the idea of deep geological disposal of plastic waste has been presented for the first time in this article. Discussion Environmental risk considerations are central to the logic of DGD. The concept assumes site selection within stable, hydrogeologically isolated geological formations comparable to those already used for hazardous-waste repositories, together with a multi-barrier containment approach. Concerns regarding microplastic and leachate formation relate primarily to conventional landfill environments where plastics remain exposed to moisture, fluctuating temperature, biological activity, and mechanical stress. In contrast, DGD seeks to minimise such exposure and therefore reduce degradation and dispersion. Plastic decomposes very slowly: it can take tens to hundreds of years ( Quecholac-Pina et al., 2020 , Mohanan et al., 2020 , Ru et al., 2020 ). In this sense, the disintegration of plastic waste is similar to that of radioactive waste. However, the decay time of radioisotopes occurs over a wider time interval. For example, srontium-90 and cesium-137 have half-lives of approximately 30 years whereas plutonium- 239 has a half-life of 24,000 years ( Ahluwalia, 2019 ). Both nuclear technologies and plastic production have been unprecedented in the history of mankind. Interestingly, the mass production of plastics began simultaneously with the development of nuclear power plants: both occurred after World War II (the Second World War). The mass production of plastics began in 1950. Two million metric tons of plastic was produced in that year ( Geyer, 2020 ). In 1954, the world’s first nuclear power station began to produce electricity ( Alam et al., 2019 , Geyer et al., 2017 ). In the case of mass production of plastic and the proliferation of nuclear power plants, the problem of waste appeared, but they were solved in different ways. The atomic explosions in August 1945 showed the power of nuclear weapons and the danger of nuclear waste; from the very beginning of the operation of nuclear power plants, nuclear waste was collected, and deep geological disposal has been considered the best solution ( Strandberg and Andrén, 2009 ). Regarding plastic waste, nothing has been done for a long time, and the situation is now approaching critical. Being invisible, radiation poses a serious risk to humans and the environment, whereas plastic disintegration is a chemical risk to ecology, animals, and humans. Although nuclear waste and plastic waste are distinct areas, there are some similarities in their management ( Armand et al., 2023 , Neksumi et al., 2022 , Subba Rao et al., 2022 , Zalasiewicz et al., 2019 ): 1. Both nuclear and plastic waste has long-term environmental impacts. Nuclear waste contains radioactive materials that have remained hazardous for thousands of years. Similarly, certain types of plastic wastes, such as single-use plastics, can persist in the environment for hundreds of years. 2. Both nuclear and plastic waste requires appropriate storage and disposal to minimize their impact. Nuclear waste must be stored in secure facilities to prevent the leakage or release of radioactive materials. Similarly, plastic waste must be managed to prevent it from entering waterways, harming wildlife, or breaking down that can contaminate ecosystems. 3. Both nuclear and plastic waste management face public concerns and opposition. Nuclear waste is a hazard owing to radiation and long-term storage. Similarly, plastic waste has garnered attention owing to its environmental consequences. 4. Both nuclear and plastic waste management require ongoing research and technological advancements for more effective and sustainable solutions. Despite the aforementioned similarities with plastic waste management processes, nuclear waste management poses distinct challenges owing to its radioactive nature and long-term risks. Plastic waste management, on the other hand, focuses on reducing pollution and minimizing the environmental impact of plastic waste. Extrapolation from nuclear waste disposal to plastic waste management may be useful. As mentioned above, deep geological disposal is considered the best solution for nuclear waste management ( Strandberg and Andrén, 2009 ). However, for deep geological disposal of plastic waste, the latter must be collected in advance. One of the reasons why people pollute the environment so irresponsibly with plastic васте is that this waste has no monetary value. If it had any value, perhaps people would pollute less, and many would collect plastic waste and get paid for it. Monetary value for plastic waste will facilitate plastic waste collection. If plastic waste is collected from the seas, oceans, and landfills, the question becomes what to do with the waste that cannot be recycled or burned? According to DGD concept, this waste may be deposited inside exhausted, abandoned, and unused mines, quarries, caverns, and holes. This offer is supported by the following: 1. There are a large number of exhausted, abandoned, and unused mines, quarries, caverns, and holes in the world ( Bennett, 2016 , Cui, 2020 , Kushwaha et al., 2019 , Liu, 2021 ). 2. Abandoned mines, holes, and caverns often have existing infrastructure such as roads, railways, and buildings that can potentially be repurposed or reused ( Lele et al., 2023 , Collier and Ireland, 2018 ). Many mines have been developed with significant infrastructure to support mining operations, including transportation systems and structures for housing workers or storing equipment ( Limpitlaw and Briel, 2014 , Carvalho, 2017 ). If these abandoned sites are considered for redevelopment or re purposing, existing infrastructure can provide a foundation for future use. For example, roads and railways can be repaired or upgraded to facilitate transportation of plastic waste to the site. Buildings can be renovated or repurposed for various functions, such as offices, storage facilities, processing facilities, warehouses, research facilities, and even recreational spaces for workers. Buildings that were once used as housing for miners can still be structurally sound and repurposed as housing for new workers. 3. The use of abandoned mines and caverns as storage for oil, gas, or other minerals ( Du et al., 2022 , Liu and Pei, 2021 , Luo et al., 2022 , Saigustia and Robak, 2021 ) has shown the possibility of their conversion to universal storage. It is especially noteworthy that abandoned mines have been used, are being used and will be used as repositories for nuclear waste ( Kasperski and Storm, 2020 , Xie et al., 2020 , Yim, 2022 ). 4. The placement of plastic waste in such locations is safe and has no environmental consequences. Plastic waste can release harmful chemicals over time in landfills, contaminating the soil, groundwater, and surrounding ecosystems whereas placement of plastic waste in isolated and encapsulated conditions prevents plastic degradation. 5. Leachate concerns: In landfills plastic waste can generate leachate, a liquid that forms when water percolates through waste. Leachates can contain toxic substances that can seep into the ground and contaminate groundwater sources, affecting drinking water supplies and further exacerbating environmental issues. In DGD leachate generation is excluded because plastic is kept in dry condition without physical and chemical influence. 6. Potential for migration: In landfills plastics are lightweight and can be easily carried by wind or water in the case of superficial disposal, potentially escaping from designated areas and spreading across the surrounding environment. This can lead to littering and pollution of nearby land, rivers, and oceans, exacerbating the global plastic waste problem rather than solving it. In DGD plastic waste migration is excluded. There is no data on how much plastic waste can be deposited in DGD, however, based on the depth and diameter of many quarries, it can be assumed that all plastic trash will fit in them for many decades and more to come. The deposition of waste should be carried out in accordance with the rules of conservation, with the possibility of extracting plastic waste in the event of depletion of hydrocarbon reserves on the planet ( Pang et al., 2022 , Petrescu, 2020 ). Thus, as soon as plastic waste becomes a commodity and an appropriate commercial approach, adequate pricing, and geological deposits are applied to it, the problem of plastic waste will be facilitated on the way to resolution. The economic, policy, and regulatory dimensions of DGD are recognised as critical. Key elements that require structured assessment include transportation and storage costs, long-term monitoring, financing models such as extended producer responsibility and public–private partnerships, and the development of appropriate national and international regulatory frameworks. Conclusion Within this framework, DGD is not conceptualised as irreversible burial, but as secure long-term storage that preserves the potential of plastic waste to serve as a future hydrocarbon and materials resource, should recovery technologies further develop. Conventional plastics are made from petroleum and natural gas. The latter are extracted from the bowels of Earth. According to the concept of DGD, extracted petroleum and natural gas can be partially returned to the bowels of the earth in the form of plastic waste that is currently not subject to recycling, reuse, repurposing, incineration, or other plastic waste management technologies. In the future, if petroleum and gas reserves on the planet are depleted, DGD plastic waste can become a raw material for recycling and secondary production of plastic and other hydrocarbon products. Data availability statement No data are associated with this article. References Ahluwalia VK: Green chemistry and the environment. New Delhi, India: The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI); 2019. Alam F, Sarkar R, Chowdhury H: Nuclear power plants in emerging economies and human resource development: A review. Energy Procedia. 2019; 160 : 3–10. (Accessed: 2nd March 2023). Publisher Full Text Reference Source Armand G, Plas F, Talandier J, et al. : Contribution of HADES URL to the development of the Cigéo project, the French industrial centre for geological disposal of high-level and long-lived intermediate-level radioactive waste in a deep clay formation. Special Publications. 2023; 536 (1): 237–256. Publisher Full Text Bennett K: Abandoned mines — environmental, social and economic challenges.2016; 2016 : 241–252. Reference Source Carney Almroth B, Eggert H: Marine plastic pollution: sources, impacts, and policy issues. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy. 2019; 13 (2): 317–326. Publisher Full Text Carvalho FP: Mining industry and sustainable development: time for change. Food Energy Secur. 2017; 6 (2): 61–77. (Accessed: 2nd January 2024). Publisher Full Text Chassignet EP, Xu X, Zavala-Romero O: Tracking marine litter with a global ocean model: where does it go? Where does it come from? Front. Mar. Sci. 2021; 8 : 667591. Publisher Full Text Collier P, Ireland G: Shared-use mining infrastructure: Why it matters and how to achieve it. Dev. Policy Rev. 2018; 36 (1): 51–68. (Accessed: 2nd January 2024). Publisher Full Text Cui CQ, Wang B, Zhao YX, et al. : Waste mine to emerging wealth: Innovative solutions for abandoned underground coal mine reutilization on a waste management level. J. Clean. Prod. 2020; 252 : 119748. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Du K, Xie J, Khandelwal M, et al. : Utilization methods and practice of abandoned mines and related rock mechanics under the ecological and double carbon strategy in China—a comprehensive review. Minerals. 2022; 12 (9): 1065. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Egger M, Sulu-Gambari F, Lebreton L: First evidence of plastic fallout from the North Pacific Garbage Patch. Sci. Rep. 2020; 10 (1): 7495. (Accessed: 23rd December 2023). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Reference Source Eriksen M, Cowger W, Erdle LM, et al. :A growing plastic smog, now estimated to be over 170 trillion plastic particles afloat in the world’s oceans—Urgent solutions required. PLoS One. 2023; 18 (3): e0281596. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Geyer R: Production, use, and fate of synthetic polymers. Plastic Waste and Recycling. Elsevier; 2020. (Accessed: 28th December 2023). Reference Source Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL: Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv. 2017; 3 (7): e1700782. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Houssini K, Li J, Tan Q:Complexities of the Global Plastics Supply Chain Revealed in a Trade-Linked Material Flow Analysis. Commun. Earth Environ. 2025; 6 (1): 257. Publisher Full Text Kaandorp MLA, Lobelle D, Kehl C, et al. :Global Mass of Buoyant Marine Plastics Dominated by Large Long-Lived Debris. Nat. Geosci 2023; 16 (8): 689–694. Publisher Full Text Kasperski T, Storm A: Eternal care: Nuclear waste as toxic legacy and future fantasy. Gesch. Ges. 2020; 46 (4): 682–705. Publisher Full Text Kushwaha A, Tewari S, Mandal PK, et al. : Stability evaluation of old and unapproachable underground mine workings below surface structures. J. Geol. Soc. India. 2019; 93 (3): 351–359. Publisher Full Text Lebreton L, Andrady A: Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal. Palgrave Commun. 2019; 5 (1): 1–11. (Accessed: 28th December 2023). Reference Source Lele S, Del Bene D, Avcı D, et al. : Values and knowledges in decision-making on environmentally disruptive infrastructure projects: insights from large dams and mines. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2023; 64 : 101346. (Accessed: 2nd January 2024). Publisher Full Text Reference Source Limpitlaw D, Briel A: Post-mining land use opportunities in developing countries - a review. J. South. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 2014; 114 (11): 899–903. (Accessed: 2nd January 2024). Reference Source Liu H, Wu Q, Chen J, et al. : Environmental impacts related to closed mines in inner Mongolia. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (23): 13473. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Luo P, Han X, Chen N: Study on complexity planning model of pumped storage in abandoned open-pit mine: A case study of Fushun open-pit mine. Front. Earth Sci. 2022; 10 : 808371. Publisher Full Text Mohanan N, Montazer Z, Sharma PK, et al. : Microbial and enzymatic degradation of synthetic plastics. Front. Microbiol. 2020; 11 : 580709. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Neksumi M, Zishan M, Sushmita B, et al. : The global menace of hazardous waste: Challenges and management.Baskar C, Ramakrishna S, Baskar S, et al. , editors. Handbook of Solid Waste Management. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2022; pp. 1715–1742. Publisher Full Text Pang X, Hu T, Larter S, et al. : Hydrocarbon accumulation depth limit and implications for potential resources prediction. Gondwana Res. 2022; 103 : 389–400. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Petrescu FI: Proper management of planetary hydrocarbon resources. Rochester, NY; 2020. Reference Source Popov V, Adey R, Pusch R, et al. : Disposal of radioactive waste in abandoned mines. J. Earth Sci. Geotech. Eng. 2019; 9 (3): 1–38. Reference Source Quecholac-Piña X, Hernández-Berriel M d C, Mañón-Salas M d C, et al. : Degradation of plastics under anaerobic conditions: a short review. Polymers. 2020; 12 (1): 109. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Reference Source Ru J, Huo Y, Yang Y: Microbial degradation and valorization of plastic wastes. Front. Microbiol. 2020; 11 : 442. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Saigustia C, Robak S: Review of potential energy storage in abandoned mines in Poland. Energies. 2021; 14 (19): 6272. Reference Source Singh S, Malyan SK, Maithani C, et al. : Microplastics in landfill leachate: Occurrence, health concerns, and removal strategies. J. Environ. Manag. 2023; 342 : 118220. (Accessed: 23rd December 2023). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Reference Source Strandberg U, Andrén M: Editorial: Nuclear waste management in a globalised world. J. Risk Res. 2009; 12 (7–8): 879–895. Publisher Full Text Subba Rao T, Panigrahi S, Velraj P: Transport and disposal of radioactive wastes in nuclear industry.Das S, Dash HR, editors. Microbial Biodegradation and Bioremediation. 2nd ed.Elsevier; 2022; pp. 419–440. Reference Source Wojnowska-Baryła I, Bernat K, Zaborowska M: Plastic waste degradation in landfill conditions: the problem with microplastics, and their direct and indirect environmental effects. IJERPH. 2022; 19 (20): 13223. (Accessed: 23rd December 2023). Reference Source Xie H, Zhao JW, Zhou HW, et al. : Secondary utilizations and perspectives of mined underground space. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2020; 96 : 103129. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Yadav V, Sherly MA, Ranjan P, et al. : Framework for quantifying environmental losses of plastics from landfills. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020; 161 : 104914. (Accessed: 23rd December 2023). Publisher Full Text Reference Source Yim MS: Policy and regulations for nuclear waste management.Yim MS, editor. Nuclear Waste Management: Science, Technology, and Policy. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2022; pp. 9–50. (Lecture Notes in Energy). Publisher Full Text Yu F, Wu Z, Wang J, et al. : Effect of landfill age on the physical and chemical characteristics of waste plastics/microplastics in a waste landfill site. Environ. Pollut. 2022; 306 : 119366. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Zalasiewicz J, Gabbott S, Waters CN: Plastic waste: How plastics have become part of the earth’s geological cycle. Waste. Elsevier; 2019; pp. 443–452. Reference Source Zhu Z, Zhao Y, Zhu Y, et al. : Efficient treatment of mature landfill leachate with a novel composite biological trickle reactor developed using refractory domestic waste and aged refuse. J. Clean. Prod. 2021; 305 : 127194. (Accessed: 23rd December 2023). Publisher Full Text Reference Source Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 17 May 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Yerevan, Armenia Hayk Minasyan Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (3) version 3 Revised Published: 14 Jan 2026, 13:504 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149702.3 version 2 Revised Published: 17 Jul 2025, 13:504 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149702.2 version 1 Published: 17 May 2024, 13:504 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149702.1 Copyright © 2026 Minasyan H. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Minasyan H. Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149702.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 14 Jan 2026 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Fayshal A. Reviewer Report For: Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194890.r450146 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v3#referee-response-450146 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 02 Feb 2026 Atik Fayshal , North Dakota State University (NDSU), Fargo, North Dakota, USA Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194890.r450146 Accept without ... Continue reading READ ALL Accept without any further revision Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: GIS, Hydrothermal Liquefaction, Environmental Photochemistry, Pesticides, Organic Micropollutants, Plastic Waste I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Fayshal A. Reviewer Report For: Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194890.r450146 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v3#referee-response-450146 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 05 Feb 2026 Hayk Minasyan , Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia 05 Feb 2026 Author Response Dear Dr. Atik Fayshal, I am profoundly grateful to you for reviewing my article. Best Regards Hayk Minasyan Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Dear Dr. Atik Fayshal, I am profoundly grateful to you for reviewing my article. Best Regards Hayk Minasyan Dear Dr. Atik Fayshal, I am profoundly grateful to you for reviewing my article. Best Regards Hayk Minasyan Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 05 Feb 2026 Hayk Minasyan , Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia 05 Feb 2026 Author Response Dear Dr. Atik Fayshal, I am profoundly grateful to you for reviewing my article. Best Regards Hayk Minasyan Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Dear Dr. Atik Fayshal, I am profoundly grateful to you for reviewing my article. Best Regards Hayk Minasyan Dear Dr. Atik Fayshal, I am profoundly grateful to you for reviewing my article. Best Regards Hayk Minasyan Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 17 Jul 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Fayshal A. Reviewer Report For: Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.184634.r437500 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v2#referee-response-437500 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 02 Jan 2026 Atik Fayshal , North Dakota State University (NDSU), Fargo, North Dakota, USA Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.184634.r437500 Lack of Economic Feasibility : The manuscript does not provide a detailed economic analysis of deep geological disposal (DGD), including the costs of transporting, storing, and maintaining plastic waste in geological sites. A more thorough cost-benefit analysis is ... Continue reading READ ALL Lack of Economic Feasibility : The manuscript does not provide a detailed economic analysis of deep geological disposal (DGD), including the costs of transporting, storing, and maintaining plastic waste in geological sites. A more thorough cost-benefit analysis is essential to evaluate the viability of this solution. Environmental Risk Assessment : While the paper claims DGD is safe, it does not address potential long-term environmental risks, such as groundwater seepage or geological changes that could compromise the waste storage. A robust risk assessment and detailed mitigation strategies are needed. Inconsistent Degradation of Plastics : The manuscript presents plastic waste as both inert (resistant to degradation) and a potential source of harmful leachates. This inconsistency should be clarified. If plastics are inert, leachate formation shouldn't be a concern; if not, the types of degradation products (e.g., microplastics) should be discussed. Overlooking the Scale of Plastic Waste : While the manuscript compares plastic waste to nuclear waste, it fails to address the vastly larger volume and less hazardous nature of plastic. The logistics of managing such a large volume in deep geological sites are not fully explored, and the feasibility of this approach should be reassessed in the context of the scale of the problem. Comparison with Other Waste Management Methods : The manuscript mentions DGD as a solution but does not sufficiently compare it to other methods like recycling, incineration, or energy recovery. These alternatives, particularly waste-to-energy systems, could be more cost-effective and environmentally sustainable, and DGD should be presented as a complementary strategy. Funding and Commercial Viability : The paper lacks a clear funding strategy for DGD. How will the infrastructure for DGD be financed? There is no discussion of whether this solution would rely on public or private funding or the economic incentives for businesses to invest in such an infrastructure. Regulatory and Policy Considerations : The manuscript does not discuss the regulatory frameworks required for implementing DGD globally. How will governments, international bodies, and environmental agencies regulate and oversee the implementation of DGD? A policy discussion would add depth to the feasibility of the proposed solution. Clarification of Plastic as a Resource : The idea of treating plastic waste as a resource is promising, but the manuscript should explore how this can be realized. How will plastic waste be extracted and reused from geological storage in the future? Further explanation is needed on the potential future technologies that could make this process feasible. Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature? Partly Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? Partly Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature? Yes Are the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: GIS, Hydrothermal Liquefaction, Environmental Photochemistry, Pesticides, Organic Micropollutants, Plastic Waste I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Fayshal A. Reviewer Report For: Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.184634.r437500 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v2#referee-response-437500 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 14 Jan 2026 Hayk Minasyan , Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia 14 Jan 2026 Author Response Response to Reviewer We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments. We appreciate the opportunity to ... Continue reading Response to Reviewer We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments. We appreciate the opportunity to improve the clarity, depth, and balance of the article. Below we address each point in detail. Where appropriate, corresponding clarifications and extensions have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. 1. Lack of Economic Feasibility Reviewer comment: The manuscript does not provide a detailed economic analysis of deep geological disposal (DGD), including the costs of transporting, storing, and maintaining plastic waste in geological sites. A more thorough cost-benefit analysis is essential to evaluate the viability of this solution. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We fully agree that the long-term viability of any waste-management strategy requires a structured economic analysis. In the present work, our intention was primarily to introduce and conceptually frame deep geological disposal (DGD) for plastic waste, rather than to present it as a fully developed operational program. For this reason, we initially limited ourselves to general economic considerations. In the revised manuscript, we clarify the conceptual nature of the proposal and describe the key economic parameters that should be evaluated in future feasibility studies, including transport, storage infrastructure, monitoring, maintenance costs, and the avoided externalities associated with environmental leakage of mismanaged plastic waste. We also emphasize that DGD is intended particularly for plastic fractions that are currently non-recyclable and environmentally persistent. 2. Environmental Risk Assessment Reviewer comment: While the paper claims DGD is safe, it does not address potential long-term environmental risks… Response: We are grateful for this observation. We agree that any long-term storage concept must account for geological stability, groundwater interaction, and low-probability but high-impact scenarios. In the revised manuscript, we expand the discussion of environmental risk. We clarify that the DGD concept is based on using stable geological formations comparable to those considered internationally for hazardous or radioactive waste repositories. We also describe generic mitigation principles such as multi-barrier containment, hydrogeological isolation, site-selection criteria, and monitoring. At the same time, we explicitly acknowledge that a full probabilistic risk assessment requires dedicated interdisciplinary study beyond the scope of this conceptual article. 3. Inconsistent Degradation of Plastics Reviewer comment: The manuscript presents plastic waste as both inert and a potential source of leachates… Response: We appreciate this insightful clarification request. The seeming inconsistency arises from the fact that plastics are generally resistant to biodegradation but may undergo fragmentation or leaching under certain environmental conditions, particularly in landfills where temperature, moisture, and chemical exposure vary. We have revised the text to state more clearly that leachate formation and fragmentation concern conventional landfill environments , whereas DGD is designed to isolate plastics in dry, sealed, and geologically stable formations where such degradation processes are expected to be minimized. Thus, one of the main advantages of DGD is precisely the reduction of environmental exposure that promotes degradation and dispersion. 4. Overlooking the Scale of Plastic Waste Reviewer comment: The manuscript does not fully address the scale of plastic waste compared with nuclear waste… Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this central point. Our comparison with nuclear waste was not intended to imply equivalence of risk, but rather to illustrate how geological isolation concepts may be transferred and adapted. In the revised manuscript, we more clearly emphasize the difference in scale and hazard profile . We also clarify that DGD is not proposed as a universal solution for all plastic waste , but as a targeted approach for non-recyclable and mismanaged fractions . We expand the discussion on logistical feasibility at regional or national levels rather than on a single global repository model. 5. Comparison with Other Waste-Management Methods Reviewer comment: The manuscript should better compare DGD with recycling, incineration, and energy recovery… Response: We fully agree, and we appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. In the revised version, we expand the discussion to present DGD explicitly as a complementary component of an integrated waste-management system . We note that recycling, chemical recycling, incineration, and waste-to-energy technologies remain essential, and DGD is proposed specifically for streams that remain outside these systems due to technical or economic barriers. 6. Funding and Commercial Viability Reviewer comment: The paper lacks a clear funding strategy… Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this important issue. As the paper is primarily conceptual, we did not originally propose specific financial frameworks. However, we fully agree that economic governance will be critical. We have now added a section discussing potential funding pathways , including extended producer responsibility schemes, public–private partnerships, environmental funds, and incentives linked to assigning economic value to currently mismanaged plastic waste. We also stress that financing models would require coordination between governments, industry, and international organizations. 7. Regulatory and Policy Considerations Reviewer comment: The manuscript does not discuss the regulatory frameworks required for DGD… Response: We appreciate this observation. Implementation of DGD would indeed require robust regulatory oversight. In the revised manuscript, we discuss the need for: • national and international regulatory alignment • repository licensing and monitoring obligations • environmental impact assessment requirements • public-engagement mechanisms We also note that existing frameworks for hazardous-waste or nuclear-waste management provide precedents that may guide the evolution of DGD governance. 8. Clarification of Plastic as a Resource Reviewer comment: Further explanation is needed regarding future reuse of stored plastic… Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this conceptual pillar. We now expand the manuscript to describe how future chemical recycling, depolymerization, or hydrocarbon-recovery technologies may enable retrieval and reuse of stored plastic waste. We clarify that DGD is conceptualized not as irreversible burial , but as secure long-term storage that preserves the material’s future value while eliminating environmental leakage today. Closing Statement We are sincerely grateful to the reviewer for the depth and constructiveness of the comments. We believe that the revisions made in response have strengthened the manuscript significantly by improving conceptual clarity, balance, and feasibility framing. Response to Reviewer We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments. We appreciate the opportunity to improve the clarity, depth, and balance of the article. Below we address each point in detail. Where appropriate, corresponding clarifications and extensions have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. 1. Lack of Economic Feasibility Reviewer comment: The manuscript does not provide a detailed economic analysis of deep geological disposal (DGD), including the costs of transporting, storing, and maintaining plastic waste in geological sites. A more thorough cost-benefit analysis is essential to evaluate the viability of this solution. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We fully agree that the long-term viability of any waste-management strategy requires a structured economic analysis. In the present work, our intention was primarily to introduce and conceptually frame deep geological disposal (DGD) for plastic waste, rather than to present it as a fully developed operational program. For this reason, we initially limited ourselves to general economic considerations. In the revised manuscript, we clarify the conceptual nature of the proposal and describe the key economic parameters that should be evaluated in future feasibility studies, including transport, storage infrastructure, monitoring, maintenance costs, and the avoided externalities associated with environmental leakage of mismanaged plastic waste. We also emphasize that DGD is intended particularly for plastic fractions that are currently non-recyclable and environmentally persistent. 2. Environmental Risk Assessment Reviewer comment: While the paper claims DGD is safe, it does not address potential long-term environmental risks… Response: We are grateful for this observation. We agree that any long-term storage concept must account for geological stability, groundwater interaction, and low-probability but high-impact scenarios. In the revised manuscript, we expand the discussion of environmental risk. We clarify that the DGD concept is based on using stable geological formations comparable to those considered internationally for hazardous or radioactive waste repositories. We also describe generic mitigation principles such as multi-barrier containment, hydrogeological isolation, site-selection criteria, and monitoring. At the same time, we explicitly acknowledge that a full probabilistic risk assessment requires dedicated interdisciplinary study beyond the scope of this conceptual article. 3. Inconsistent Degradation of Plastics Reviewer comment: The manuscript presents plastic waste as both inert and a potential source of leachates… Response: We appreciate this insightful clarification request. The seeming inconsistency arises from the fact that plastics are generally resistant to biodegradation but may undergo fragmentation or leaching under certain environmental conditions, particularly in landfills where temperature, moisture, and chemical exposure vary. We have revised the text to state more clearly that leachate formation and fragmentation concern conventional landfill environments , whereas DGD is designed to isolate plastics in dry, sealed, and geologically stable formations where such degradation processes are expected to be minimized. Thus, one of the main advantages of DGD is precisely the reduction of environmental exposure that promotes degradation and dispersion. 4. Overlooking the Scale of Plastic Waste Reviewer comment: The manuscript does not fully address the scale of plastic waste compared with nuclear waste… Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this central point. Our comparison with nuclear waste was not intended to imply equivalence of risk, but rather to illustrate how geological isolation concepts may be transferred and adapted. In the revised manuscript, we more clearly emphasize the difference in scale and hazard profile . We also clarify that DGD is not proposed as a universal solution for all plastic waste , but as a targeted approach for non-recyclable and mismanaged fractions . We expand the discussion on logistical feasibility at regional or national levels rather than on a single global repository model. 5. Comparison with Other Waste-Management Methods Reviewer comment: The manuscript should better compare DGD with recycling, incineration, and energy recovery… Response: We fully agree, and we appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. In the revised version, we expand the discussion to present DGD explicitly as a complementary component of an integrated waste-management system . We note that recycling, chemical recycling, incineration, and waste-to-energy technologies remain essential, and DGD is proposed specifically for streams that remain outside these systems due to technical or economic barriers. 6. Funding and Commercial Viability Reviewer comment: The paper lacks a clear funding strategy… Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this important issue. As the paper is primarily conceptual, we did not originally propose specific financial frameworks. However, we fully agree that economic governance will be critical. We have now added a section discussing potential funding pathways , including extended producer responsibility schemes, public–private partnerships, environmental funds, and incentives linked to assigning economic value to currently mismanaged plastic waste. We also stress that financing models would require coordination between governments, industry, and international organizations. 7. Regulatory and Policy Considerations Reviewer comment: The manuscript does not discuss the regulatory frameworks required for DGD… Response: We appreciate this observation. Implementation of DGD would indeed require robust regulatory oversight. In the revised manuscript, we discuss the need for: • national and international regulatory alignment • repository licensing and monitoring obligations • environmental impact assessment requirements • public-engagement mechanisms We also note that existing frameworks for hazardous-waste or nuclear-waste management provide precedents that may guide the evolution of DGD governance. 8. Clarification of Plastic as a Resource Reviewer comment: Further explanation is needed regarding future reuse of stored plastic… Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this conceptual pillar. We now expand the manuscript to describe how future chemical recycling, depolymerization, or hydrocarbon-recovery technologies may enable retrieval and reuse of stored plastic waste. We clarify that DGD is conceptualized not as irreversible burial , but as secure long-term storage that preserves the material’s future value while eliminating environmental leakage today. Closing Statement We are sincerely grateful to the reviewer for the depth and constructiveness of the comments. We believe that the revisions made in response have strengthened the manuscript significantly by improving conceptual clarity, balance, and feasibility framing. Competing Interests: No competing interests Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 14 Jan 2026 Hayk Minasyan , Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia 14 Jan 2026 Author Response Response to Reviewer We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments. We appreciate the opportunity to ... Continue reading Response to Reviewer We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments. We appreciate the opportunity to improve the clarity, depth, and balance of the article. Below we address each point in detail. Where appropriate, corresponding clarifications and extensions have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. 1. Lack of Economic Feasibility Reviewer comment: The manuscript does not provide a detailed economic analysis of deep geological disposal (DGD), including the costs of transporting, storing, and maintaining plastic waste in geological sites. A more thorough cost-benefit analysis is essential to evaluate the viability of this solution. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We fully agree that the long-term viability of any waste-management strategy requires a structured economic analysis. In the present work, our intention was primarily to introduce and conceptually frame deep geological disposal (DGD) for plastic waste, rather than to present it as a fully developed operational program. For this reason, we initially limited ourselves to general economic considerations. In the revised manuscript, we clarify the conceptual nature of the proposal and describe the key economic parameters that should be evaluated in future feasibility studies, including transport, storage infrastructure, monitoring, maintenance costs, and the avoided externalities associated with environmental leakage of mismanaged plastic waste. We also emphasize that DGD is intended particularly for plastic fractions that are currently non-recyclable and environmentally persistent. 2. Environmental Risk Assessment Reviewer comment: While the paper claims DGD is safe, it does not address potential long-term environmental risks… Response: We are grateful for this observation. We agree that any long-term storage concept must account for geological stability, groundwater interaction, and low-probability but high-impact scenarios. In the revised manuscript, we expand the discussion of environmental risk. We clarify that the DGD concept is based on using stable geological formations comparable to those considered internationally for hazardous or radioactive waste repositories. We also describe generic mitigation principles such as multi-barrier containment, hydrogeological isolation, site-selection criteria, and monitoring. At the same time, we explicitly acknowledge that a full probabilistic risk assessment requires dedicated interdisciplinary study beyond the scope of this conceptual article. 3. Inconsistent Degradation of Plastics Reviewer comment: The manuscript presents plastic waste as both inert and a potential source of leachates… Response: We appreciate this insightful clarification request. The seeming inconsistency arises from the fact that plastics are generally resistant to biodegradation but may undergo fragmentation or leaching under certain environmental conditions, particularly in landfills where temperature, moisture, and chemical exposure vary. We have revised the text to state more clearly that leachate formation and fragmentation concern conventional landfill environments , whereas DGD is designed to isolate plastics in dry, sealed, and geologically stable formations where such degradation processes are expected to be minimized. Thus, one of the main advantages of DGD is precisely the reduction of environmental exposure that promotes degradation and dispersion. 4. Overlooking the Scale of Plastic Waste Reviewer comment: The manuscript does not fully address the scale of plastic waste compared with nuclear waste… Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this central point. Our comparison with nuclear waste was not intended to imply equivalence of risk, but rather to illustrate how geological isolation concepts may be transferred and adapted. In the revised manuscript, we more clearly emphasize the difference in scale and hazard profile . We also clarify that DGD is not proposed as a universal solution for all plastic waste , but as a targeted approach for non-recyclable and mismanaged fractions . We expand the discussion on logistical feasibility at regional or national levels rather than on a single global repository model. 5. Comparison with Other Waste-Management Methods Reviewer comment: The manuscript should better compare DGD with recycling, incineration, and energy recovery… Response: We fully agree, and we appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. In the revised version, we expand the discussion to present DGD explicitly as a complementary component of an integrated waste-management system . We note that recycling, chemical recycling, incineration, and waste-to-energy technologies remain essential, and DGD is proposed specifically for streams that remain outside these systems due to technical or economic barriers. 6. Funding and Commercial Viability Reviewer comment: The paper lacks a clear funding strategy… Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this important issue. As the paper is primarily conceptual, we did not originally propose specific financial frameworks. However, we fully agree that economic governance will be critical. We have now added a section discussing potential funding pathways , including extended producer responsibility schemes, public–private partnerships, environmental funds, and incentives linked to assigning economic value to currently mismanaged plastic waste. We also stress that financing models would require coordination between governments, industry, and international organizations. 7. Regulatory and Policy Considerations Reviewer comment: The manuscript does not discuss the regulatory frameworks required for DGD… Response: We appreciate this observation. Implementation of DGD would indeed require robust regulatory oversight. In the revised manuscript, we discuss the need for: • national and international regulatory alignment • repository licensing and monitoring obligations • environmental impact assessment requirements • public-engagement mechanisms We also note that existing frameworks for hazardous-waste or nuclear-waste management provide precedents that may guide the evolution of DGD governance. 8. Clarification of Plastic as a Resource Reviewer comment: Further explanation is needed regarding future reuse of stored plastic… Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this conceptual pillar. We now expand the manuscript to describe how future chemical recycling, depolymerization, or hydrocarbon-recovery technologies may enable retrieval and reuse of stored plastic waste. We clarify that DGD is conceptualized not as irreversible burial , but as secure long-term storage that preserves the material’s future value while eliminating environmental leakage today. Closing Statement We are sincerely grateful to the reviewer for the depth and constructiveness of the comments. We believe that the revisions made in response have strengthened the manuscript significantly by improving conceptual clarity, balance, and feasibility framing. Response to Reviewer We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments. We appreciate the opportunity to improve the clarity, depth, and balance of the article. Below we address each point in detail. Where appropriate, corresponding clarifications and extensions have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. 1. Lack of Economic Feasibility Reviewer comment: The manuscript does not provide a detailed economic analysis of deep geological disposal (DGD), including the costs of transporting, storing, and maintaining plastic waste in geological sites. A more thorough cost-benefit analysis is essential to evaluate the viability of this solution. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We fully agree that the long-term viability of any waste-management strategy requires a structured economic analysis. In the present work, our intention was primarily to introduce and conceptually frame deep geological disposal (DGD) for plastic waste, rather than to present it as a fully developed operational program. For this reason, we initially limited ourselves to general economic considerations. In the revised manuscript, we clarify the conceptual nature of the proposal and describe the key economic parameters that should be evaluated in future feasibility studies, including transport, storage infrastructure, monitoring, maintenance costs, and the avoided externalities associated with environmental leakage of mismanaged plastic waste. We also emphasize that DGD is intended particularly for plastic fractions that are currently non-recyclable and environmentally persistent. 2. Environmental Risk Assessment Reviewer comment: While the paper claims DGD is safe, it does not address potential long-term environmental risks… Response: We are grateful for this observation. We agree that any long-term storage concept must account for geological stability, groundwater interaction, and low-probability but high-impact scenarios. In the revised manuscript, we expand the discussion of environmental risk. We clarify that the DGD concept is based on using stable geological formations comparable to those considered internationally for hazardous or radioactive waste repositories. We also describe generic mitigation principles such as multi-barrier containment, hydrogeological isolation, site-selection criteria, and monitoring. At the same time, we explicitly acknowledge that a full probabilistic risk assessment requires dedicated interdisciplinary study beyond the scope of this conceptual article. 3. Inconsistent Degradation of Plastics Reviewer comment: The manuscript presents plastic waste as both inert and a potential source of leachates… Response: We appreciate this insightful clarification request. The seeming inconsistency arises from the fact that plastics are generally resistant to biodegradation but may undergo fragmentation or leaching under certain environmental conditions, particularly in landfills where temperature, moisture, and chemical exposure vary. We have revised the text to state more clearly that leachate formation and fragmentation concern conventional landfill environments , whereas DGD is designed to isolate plastics in dry, sealed, and geologically stable formations where such degradation processes are expected to be minimized. Thus, one of the main advantages of DGD is precisely the reduction of environmental exposure that promotes degradation and dispersion. 4. Overlooking the Scale of Plastic Waste Reviewer comment: The manuscript does not fully address the scale of plastic waste compared with nuclear waste… Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this central point. Our comparison with nuclear waste was not intended to imply equivalence of risk, but rather to illustrate how geological isolation concepts may be transferred and adapted. In the revised manuscript, we more clearly emphasize the difference in scale and hazard profile . We also clarify that DGD is not proposed as a universal solution for all plastic waste , but as a targeted approach for non-recyclable and mismanaged fractions . We expand the discussion on logistical feasibility at regional or national levels rather than on a single global repository model. 5. Comparison with Other Waste-Management Methods Reviewer comment: The manuscript should better compare DGD with recycling, incineration, and energy recovery… Response: We fully agree, and we appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. In the revised version, we expand the discussion to present DGD explicitly as a complementary component of an integrated waste-management system . We note that recycling, chemical recycling, incineration, and waste-to-energy technologies remain essential, and DGD is proposed specifically for streams that remain outside these systems due to technical or economic barriers. 6. Funding and Commercial Viability Reviewer comment: The paper lacks a clear funding strategy… Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this important issue. As the paper is primarily conceptual, we did not originally propose specific financial frameworks. However, we fully agree that economic governance will be critical. We have now added a section discussing potential funding pathways , including extended producer responsibility schemes, public–private partnerships, environmental funds, and incentives linked to assigning economic value to currently mismanaged plastic waste. We also stress that financing models would require coordination between governments, industry, and international organizations. 7. Regulatory and Policy Considerations Reviewer comment: The manuscript does not discuss the regulatory frameworks required for DGD… Response: We appreciate this observation. Implementation of DGD would indeed require robust regulatory oversight. In the revised manuscript, we discuss the need for: • national and international regulatory alignment • repository licensing and monitoring obligations • environmental impact assessment requirements • public-engagement mechanisms We also note that existing frameworks for hazardous-waste or nuclear-waste management provide precedents that may guide the evolution of DGD governance. 8. Clarification of Plastic as a Resource Reviewer comment: Further explanation is needed regarding future reuse of stored plastic… Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this conceptual pillar. We now expand the manuscript to describe how future chemical recycling, depolymerization, or hydrocarbon-recovery technologies may enable retrieval and reuse of stored plastic waste. We clarify that DGD is conceptualized not as irreversible burial , but as secure long-term storage that preserves the material’s future value while eliminating environmental leakage today. Closing Statement We are sincerely grateful to the reviewer for the depth and constructiveness of the comments. We believe that the revisions made in response have strengthened the manuscript significantly by improving conceptual clarity, balance, and feasibility framing. Competing Interests: No competing interests Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Bergmann DM. Reviewer Report For: Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.184634.r432879 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v2#referee-response-432879 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 02 Jan 2026 Dr. Melanie Bergmann , Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.184634.r432879 Review of Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons The opinion article by Hayk Minasyan deals with the long-term disposal of plastic waste and proposes disposal in the deep geosphere as a possible complimentary solution to plastic ... Continue reading READ ALL Review of Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons The opinion article by Hayk Minasyan deals with the long-term disposal of plastic waste and proposes disposal in the deep geosphere as a possible complimentary solution to plastic waste management. As this is an opinion piece, I should state that I disagree with the suggested concept, because, it is not in line with the waste hierarchy. Secondly, I very much doubt that this approach is feasible economically speaking and in terms of available capacity, or unproblematic for the environment in the long term. I don't mean to be polemical, but this idea is a little akin to proposing to shoot our plastic waste into space. I am sorry but I recommend rejection on the following more specific grounds: No data is provided to show that this is a good idea. -Scalability: According to the OECD , plastic waste is due to triple by 2060 if business-as-usual growth rates of plastic production will continue on the current trajectory. This would cause 1014.144 million t of plastic waste in 2060 alone. No data are provided on the potential global storage capacity of DGD and how this relates to the projected mass of plastic waste. I suspect it could only accommodate a small fraction ever of the waste produced. -Implementation: Before deep storage, plastic waste would need to be collected. However, waste collection is currently poorly developed in many low-GDP countries. Development of new schemes would incur high cost, as would transport to these. It is unclear how new or improved waste collection infrastructures could be financed. In light of this, it seems unlikely that DGS could play a significant role. -Potential effects of hazards on geosphere integrity: Deep geological storage could be affected by the effects of climate change or other unforeseen changes in the geosphere (s. below example of Asse II mine for nuclear waste). Climate change does not only affect the geosphere of permafrost but also seismic activities increasing the frequency of earthquakes. This is a result of changes in hydrostatic pressure in the underground due to global sea level rise and more frequent strong storms, a recent study has shown. It could lead “to changes in seismic cycles – with an increasing risk of earthquakes and cascading effects such as landslides, tsunamis and liquefaction, particularly in the world's coastal regions.” Surely, such risks have to be analysed and considered in an era of climate change. Hazard assessments are needed and might show that only few areas exist that are sufficiently stable and thus amenable to deep geological storage. This aspect is not mentioned at all in the Opinion Piece. In addition, I would argue that those areas with greater resilience should be prioritised for the disposal of nuclear waste, given that it is much more hazardous than plastic waste, particularly during the acute phase. This leads me to another weak point in the argument: the comparison between the two types of waste. The text suggests that deep geological disposal is justified because plastic is persistent and toxic too. While this is true to a certain extent, nuclear waste is far more hazardous, making this comparison questionable. Furthermore, I do not consider the amount of text devoted to radioactive waste and its development to be relevant in an article about plastic waste. -Competition with other uses: Deep geological storage is considered for various purposes, including- as stated by the authors- nuclear waste as well as carbon that has been captured from the atmosphere to reduce CO2. Competition between these uses and limited storage capacity raises again the question of scalability. More specific points: Abstract: “ Approximately 80% of ocean plastic litter comes from land. ” This is a myth there is no clear source of this statement that is being re-iterated. By contrast, many studies find other percentages. Either omit this sentence or write that there is uncertainty attached to this estimate. Introduction -“ More than 10 million tons of plastics enter the oceans annually (Carney Almroth and Eggert, 2019, Chassignet et al., 2021).” This is outdated and the citation is not a data source (should be Jambeck et al. 2015). Borrelle et al. (2020) report that 19-23 million t/year enter the aquatic environment. Cottom et al. (2024) estimate plastic waste emissions at 52.1 [48.3–56.3] million metric tonnes (Mt) per year (all environments). -“ A 2025 study (based on 2022 data) found that 27.9% was recycled, 34% was incinerated, 40% went to landfills, and 11% was mismanaged (i.e. littered or dumped into the environment) (Houssini et al., 2025) .” Houssini et al. referred to recycling rates of 9% : “ The global recycling rate remain stagnant showing little progress from previous estimates 1 , accounting of 9% of primary production .” Please, correct or refer to the OECD report, which many people cite: “After taking into account losses during recycling, only 9% of plastic waste was ultimately recycled, while 19% was incinerated and almost 50% went to sanitary landfills. The remaining 22% was disposed of in uncontrolled dumpsites, burned in open pits or leaked into the environment.” file:///C:/Users/bergmann/Downloads/de747aef-en.pdf) -Maybe you want to add in the first paragraph that numbers will be much bigger if nanoplastics are added based on this study: (Refer to ref no.1) -“ Currently, global annual plastic production is approximately 348 million tons (Yu et al., 2022) .” This is outdated. OECD reports 460 million t already in 2019, which was 6 years ago, during which additional plastic has been produced at increasing growth rates. Some say, if plastic fibers are included, it should be ~500 million t in 2021. -“ The accumulation of mismanaged plastic waste (MPW) in the environment is a global concern ( Lebreton and Andrady, 2019 ). Therefore, along with the already practiced approaches (recycling, incineration, landfill, etc.), new approaches to plastic waste management are necessary.“ This list of measures does not include reducing plastic production, even though this is one of the most effective ways to reduce plastic waste and plastic pollution (e.g. Lau et al. 2020; and hence the waste hierarchy), especially since it has recently been shown that plastic production and plastic pollution are linked (Cowger et al. 2024). -“ As landfills are relatively closely sealed reactors with complex biochemical reactions and physical changes, plastic waste buried in landfills is subjected to more severe environmental conditions such as leachate, high salinity, fluctuating temperature, gas generation, physical stress, and microbial degradation .” Please add storms and extreme weather events as well as natural disasters to this list. -P3: “ The amount of plastic waste continues to increase progressively, and this waste is increasing the land and water surfaces (Singh et al., 2023) .” Add ‘on’ -“This waste, currently unsuitable for recycling, may tomorrow become a raw material for future technologies.” Please, elaborate, what might be these future uses? I am not aware of any such development and am skeptical as ‘plastics’ comprise so many different polymer types and at least 16,000 chemicals, so the potential combination of substances is huge, making any use unlikely. Just pointing to some potential future use is not sufficient in a scientific perspective, it is a bit like a unicorn, wishful thinking. This is important, because if there will be no such solution available, it is just another form of storage, and storage capacity is limited (especially given the expected growth of waste). -“ This article outlines the rationale, feasibility and implications of this unconventional but potentially transformative strategy. ” I would argue that this article does not outline the feasibility of Deep Geological Disposal as no data are provided on the storage capacity in relation to waste generation. Method / Results -Method & Results seem appropriate for the limited scope intended. It only shows that this concept has not already been proposed elsewhere. Unfortunately, however, it would have been more important to provide data on the storage capacity in relation to waste generation to be able to assess the feasibility of the concept as stated above. Since this is lacking, I consider the methods/results insufficient. Discussion -P.4: srontium-90 should be strontium-90 -Even if decay times of plastic and nuclear waste are similar (we don’t actually know these for many plastics), I find the analogy made and thus the framing misleading, given that nuclear waste is so much more hazardous. -“ One of the reasons why people pollute the environment so irresponsibly with plastic waste is that this waste has no monetary value. If it had any value, perhaps people would pollute less, and many would collect plastic waste and get paid for it .“ This sentence implies that plastic pollution is primarily driven by ‘irresponsible’ consumer behaviour. While this might be true in some cases, it has been shown that plastic pollution is linked with oversupply, i.e. increasing plastic production (Cowger et al.). This increase meets insufficient waste management capacity, so it is a structural problem, nothing that consumers can solve. -“1. There are a large number of exhausted, abandoned, and unused mines, quarries, caverns, and holes in the world ( Bennett, 2016 , Cui, 2020 , Kushwaha et al., 2019 , Liu, 2021 ).” This is insufficient as a proof of concept for DGD. Numbers plus capacity of such infrastructures mapped against plastic waste produced would be a starting point. -“ 4.The placement of plastic waste in such locations is safe and has no environmental consequences. Plastic waste can release harmful chemicals over time in landfills, contaminating the soil, groundwater, and surrounding ecosystems whereas placement of plastic waste in isolated and encapsulated conditions prevents plastic degradation.” See argument above re potential geo- hazards in a changing climate. In addition, there is precedence for instability of former mines, e.g. the German salt mine Asse II, which is used to store radioactive waste ( https://www.bge.de/en/asse/ ). This raises the important question how isolated & safe such infrastructures really are in the long run (potentially even more so in a changing climate). At ASSE II, it is not even well-known what/how much was stored in the 1970’s. How can we ensure that future generations will have such knowledge, when we were unable to do so in the past in a ‘well-developed’ country such as Germany. There are likely more such examples elsewhere. -“ The deposition of waste should be carried out in accordance with the rules of conservation, with the possibility of extracting plastic waste in the event of depletion of hydrocarbon reserves on the planet ( Pang et al., 2022 , Petrescu, 2020 ). ” Once hydrocarbons will have been depleted, we will no longer be permitted to emit CO2 (even from incinerating DGD plastic waste), and hopefully long before that, in order to protect our climate and livelihoods. Has the author not heard of the climate protection agreement? -Should the paper still be accepted, I recommend review by geologists with a deep knowledge of the deep geosphere and its stability. Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature? Partly Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? Yes Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature? No Are the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments? No References 1. ten Hietbrink S, Materić D, Holzinger R, Groeskamp S, et al.: Nanoplastic concentrations across the North Atlantic. Nature . 2025; 643 (8071): 412-416 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Plastic pollution I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Bergmann DM. Reviewer Report For: Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.184634.r432879 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v2#referee-response-432879 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 14 Jan 2026 Hayk Minasyan , Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia 14 Jan 2026 Author Response Response to Reviewer: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the careful, detailed and critical evaluation of our Opinion Article and for the opportunity to clarify several points. ... Continue reading Response to Reviewer: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the careful, detailed and critical evaluation of our Opinion Article and for the opportunity to clarify several points. We acknowledge that the topic of deep geological disposal (DGD) of plastic waste is unconventional and controversial. Precisely for this reason, we consider it important that it is openly discussed in the scientific literature. Below, we address the Reviewer's main concerns point-by-point. General position of the Reviewer: The Reviewer states that they disagree with the concept because it is not aligned with the waste hierarchy, and that they doubt feasibility, scalability and long-term environmental safety. We fully respect this position. However, our article does not propose DGD as a replacement for the waste hierarchy , but as a complementary, last-resort strategy for those fractions of plastic waste that: cannot currently be recycled, are being persistently mismanaged, and contribute to long-term environmental loading. This is clarified in several parts of the manuscript. The intention of the Opinion Article is to explore whether DGD deserves consideration alongside existing measures rather than to claim that it should become a dominant or primary strategy. 1. “No data are provided to support that this is a good idea” / “Scalability and capacity are unclear” We agree with the Reviewer that quantitative modelling of global storage potential versus projected plastic waste generation would be highly desirable. However, such work requires interdisciplinary collaboration between geologists, mining engineers, waste scientists and economists — and currently no such models exist in the literature . The aim of the Opinion Article is to open this line of inquiry , not to prematurely close it. We explicitly acknowledge that feasibility depends on: geological availability, storage integrity, cost and infrastructure, interaction with other societal priorities. Therefore, the absence of full capacity models should be viewed not as a weakness of logic, but as an indication of an emerging research direction that requires development . We also emphasise that DGD is not proposed for 100% of global plastic waste , but potentially for a limited fraction of persistent and unrecyclable waste . Thus, its scalability must be evaluated in that narrower context. 2. “Implementation challenges in low-income countries make DGD unrealistic” We agree that insufficient waste collection remains a critical bottleneck globally. However, any advanced waste management strategy — including recycling and controlled incineration — depends on improving collection systems. Therefore, improving waste collection is not an argument against DGD specifically, but a shared prerequisite across all management approaches . Our intention is not to provide a financial blueprint, but to state that if unrecyclable plastic must be isolated for centuries to millennia, deep stable formations may be one of few environments capable of achieving this . 3. “Geological instability and climate-related hazards may compromise DGD safety” This is an important and valid consideration. We agree that: long-term hazard assessment, site-specific geological stability studies, and climate-sensitivity analyses are indispensable for any future exploration of DGD. However, it should be noted that geological disposal is already being developed internationally for high-level radioactive waste , which requires far more stringent containment than plastics. This demonstrates that stable deep formations do exist and can be evaluated rigorously . We do not claim that all geological settings are suitable. Rather, we argue that some subset of formations may meet the necessary stability criteria — and that this deserves assessment. 4. “Comparison with nuclear waste is misleading” We agree that radioactive waste is vastly more hazardous. Our comparison does not imply equivalence of risk . The analogy is limited to timescale : both classes of material persist on century-to-millennium scales, both create cumulative environmental burden. Thus, the analogy is conceptual, not risk-equivalence-based. We have clarified this in the revised text. 5. “Competition for underground space (e.g., nuclear waste, CO ₂ storage)” This is again a valid point — and another reason why quantitative assessments are needed . However, current planning for geological repositories is not expected to occupy all suitable formations globally. The Earth’s crust is vast, and different formations may be suited for different materials. We do not argue that DGD must proceed — only that it should be considered among strategic options for long-term isolation of persistent wastes . 6. “Alleged ‘myth’ regarding land-based contribution to marine plastic pollution” We acknowledge the Reviewer’s concern. We have revised the text to: reflect uncertainty ranges, avoid implying precision where none exists, and cite recent estimates alongside earlier work. We agree that estimates differ and this is now clearly stated. 7. “Recycling figures quoted incorrectly / outdated production data” We thank the Reviewer for drawing attention to this. We have revised the manuscript to: ensure consistency with OECD and other authoritative sources, update global production estimates, correct the quoted recycling percentages. We are grateful for this correction. 8. “Future reuse of deposited plastic is speculative” We accept this point. We have clarified that potential future retrieval is hypothetical , and that the primary argument for DGD remains long-term isolation , not resource banking. 9. “Plastic pollution is linked to overproduction, not only consumer behaviour” We fully agree. The revised text reflects that: structural production dynamics, insufficient waste management capacity, and global inequalities are key drivers of environmental leakage. 10. “Insufficient demonstration of feasibility in the Methods/Results” We agree that the article does not supply engineering feasibility evidence — because it is not intended as an engineering design study. Instead, it is a conceptual Opinion Article arguing that DGD deserves structured scientific evaluation rather than being dismissed a priori . We are grateful to the Reviewer for their thoughtful engagement with our work. The primary purpose of this Opinion Article was not to present a finalized engineering solution, but rather to place a new idea into the scientific domain and initiate discussion — even if only among a limited readership. We also believe that the Review process itself illustrates an enduring feature of academic life: genuinely new ideas often encounter resistance, particularly when they challenge established hierarchies of thought. Such resistance is natural and even necessary — it sharpens arguments and clarifies assumptions. At the same time, it reinforces the importance of preserving intellectual space for unconventional perspectives, especially in areas where conventional approaches alone have not solved the problem. In summary, we remain convinced that the idea merits discussion, irrespective of whether one ultimately supports or rejects it. If the article has succeeded in stimulating such discussion, then it has fulfilled its intended purpose Response to Reviewer: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the careful, detailed and critical evaluation of our Opinion Article and for the opportunity to clarify several points. We acknowledge that the topic of deep geological disposal (DGD) of plastic waste is unconventional and controversial. Precisely for this reason, we consider it important that it is openly discussed in the scientific literature. Below, we address the Reviewer's main concerns point-by-point. General position of the Reviewer: The Reviewer states that they disagree with the concept because it is not aligned with the waste hierarchy, and that they doubt feasibility, scalability and long-term environmental safety. We fully respect this position. However, our article does not propose DGD as a replacement for the waste hierarchy , but as a complementary, last-resort strategy for those fractions of plastic waste that: cannot currently be recycled, are being persistently mismanaged, and contribute to long-term environmental loading. This is clarified in several parts of the manuscript. The intention of the Opinion Article is to explore whether DGD deserves consideration alongside existing measures rather than to claim that it should become a dominant or primary strategy. 1. “No data are provided to support that this is a good idea” / “Scalability and capacity are unclear” We agree with the Reviewer that quantitative modelling of global storage potential versus projected plastic waste generation would be highly desirable. However, such work requires interdisciplinary collaboration between geologists, mining engineers, waste scientists and economists — and currently no such models exist in the literature . The aim of the Opinion Article is to open this line of inquiry , not to prematurely close it. We explicitly acknowledge that feasibility depends on: geological availability, storage integrity, cost and infrastructure, interaction with other societal priorities. Therefore, the absence of full capacity models should be viewed not as a weakness of logic, but as an indication of an emerging research direction that requires development . We also emphasise that DGD is not proposed for 100% of global plastic waste , but potentially for a limited fraction of persistent and unrecyclable waste . Thus, its scalability must be evaluated in that narrower context. 2. “Implementation challenges in low-income countries make DGD unrealistic” We agree that insufficient waste collection remains a critical bottleneck globally. However, any advanced waste management strategy — including recycling and controlled incineration — depends on improving collection systems. Therefore, improving waste collection is not an argument against DGD specifically, but a shared prerequisite across all management approaches . Our intention is not to provide a financial blueprint, but to state that if unrecyclable plastic must be isolated for centuries to millennia, deep stable formations may be one of few environments capable of achieving this . 3. “Geological instability and climate-related hazards may compromise DGD safety” This is an important and valid consideration. We agree that: long-term hazard assessment, site-specific geological stability studies, and climate-sensitivity analyses are indispensable for any future exploration of DGD. However, it should be noted that geological disposal is already being developed internationally for high-level radioactive waste , which requires far more stringent containment than plastics. This demonstrates that stable deep formations do exist and can be evaluated rigorously . We do not claim that all geological settings are suitable. Rather, we argue that some subset of formations may meet the necessary stability criteria — and that this deserves assessment. 4. “Comparison with nuclear waste is misleading” We agree that radioactive waste is vastly more hazardous. Our comparison does not imply equivalence of risk . The analogy is limited to timescale : both classes of material persist on century-to-millennium scales, both create cumulative environmental burden. Thus, the analogy is conceptual, not risk-equivalence-based. We have clarified this in the revised text. 5. “Competition for underground space (e.g., nuclear waste, CO ₂ storage)” This is again a valid point — and another reason why quantitative assessments are needed . However, current planning for geological repositories is not expected to occupy all suitable formations globally. The Earth’s crust is vast, and different formations may be suited for different materials. We do not argue that DGD must proceed — only that it should be considered among strategic options for long-term isolation of persistent wastes . 6. “Alleged ‘myth’ regarding land-based contribution to marine plastic pollution” We acknowledge the Reviewer’s concern. We have revised the text to: reflect uncertainty ranges, avoid implying precision where none exists, and cite recent estimates alongside earlier work. We agree that estimates differ and this is now clearly stated. 7. “Recycling figures quoted incorrectly / outdated production data” We thank the Reviewer for drawing attention to this. We have revised the manuscript to: ensure consistency with OECD and other authoritative sources, update global production estimates, correct the quoted recycling percentages. We are grateful for this correction. 8. “Future reuse of deposited plastic is speculative” We accept this point. We have clarified that potential future retrieval is hypothetical , and that the primary argument for DGD remains long-term isolation , not resource banking. 9. “Plastic pollution is linked to overproduction, not only consumer behaviour” We fully agree. The revised text reflects that: structural production dynamics, insufficient waste management capacity, and global inequalities are key drivers of environmental leakage. 10. “Insufficient demonstration of feasibility in the Methods/Results” We agree that the article does not supply engineering feasibility evidence — because it is not intended as an engineering design study. Instead, it is a conceptual Opinion Article arguing that DGD deserves structured scientific evaluation rather than being dismissed a priori . We are grateful to the Reviewer for their thoughtful engagement with our work. The primary purpose of this Opinion Article was not to present a finalized engineering solution, but rather to place a new idea into the scientific domain and initiate discussion — even if only among a limited readership. We also believe that the Review process itself illustrates an enduring feature of academic life: genuinely new ideas often encounter resistance, particularly when they challenge established hierarchies of thought. Such resistance is natural and even necessary — it sharpens arguments and clarifies assumptions. At the same time, it reinforces the importance of preserving intellectual space for unconventional perspectives, especially in areas where conventional approaches alone have not solved the problem. In summary, we remain convinced that the idea merits discussion, irrespective of whether one ultimately supports or rejects it. If the article has succeeded in stimulating such discussion, then it has fulfilled its intended purpose Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 14 Jan 2026 Hayk Minasyan , Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia 14 Jan 2026 Author Response Response to Reviewer: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the careful, detailed and critical evaluation of our Opinion Article and for the opportunity to clarify several points. ... Continue reading Response to Reviewer: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the careful, detailed and critical evaluation of our Opinion Article and for the opportunity to clarify several points. We acknowledge that the topic of deep geological disposal (DGD) of plastic waste is unconventional and controversial. Precisely for this reason, we consider it important that it is openly discussed in the scientific literature. Below, we address the Reviewer's main concerns point-by-point. General position of the Reviewer: The Reviewer states that they disagree with the concept because it is not aligned with the waste hierarchy, and that they doubt feasibility, scalability and long-term environmental safety. We fully respect this position. However, our article does not propose DGD as a replacement for the waste hierarchy , but as a complementary, last-resort strategy for those fractions of plastic waste that: cannot currently be recycled, are being persistently mismanaged, and contribute to long-term environmental loading. This is clarified in several parts of the manuscript. The intention of the Opinion Article is to explore whether DGD deserves consideration alongside existing measures rather than to claim that it should become a dominant or primary strategy. 1. “No data are provided to support that this is a good idea” / “Scalability and capacity are unclear” We agree with the Reviewer that quantitative modelling of global storage potential versus projected plastic waste generation would be highly desirable. However, such work requires interdisciplinary collaboration between geologists, mining engineers, waste scientists and economists — and currently no such models exist in the literature . The aim of the Opinion Article is to open this line of inquiry , not to prematurely close it. We explicitly acknowledge that feasibility depends on: geological availability, storage integrity, cost and infrastructure, interaction with other societal priorities. Therefore, the absence of full capacity models should be viewed not as a weakness of logic, but as an indication of an emerging research direction that requires development . We also emphasise that DGD is not proposed for 100% of global plastic waste , but potentially for a limited fraction of persistent and unrecyclable waste . Thus, its scalability must be evaluated in that narrower context. 2. “Implementation challenges in low-income countries make DGD unrealistic” We agree that insufficient waste collection remains a critical bottleneck globally. However, any advanced waste management strategy — including recycling and controlled incineration — depends on improving collection systems. Therefore, improving waste collection is not an argument against DGD specifically, but a shared prerequisite across all management approaches . Our intention is not to provide a financial blueprint, but to state that if unrecyclable plastic must be isolated for centuries to millennia, deep stable formations may be one of few environments capable of achieving this . 3. “Geological instability and climate-related hazards may compromise DGD safety” This is an important and valid consideration. We agree that: long-term hazard assessment, site-specific geological stability studies, and climate-sensitivity analyses are indispensable for any future exploration of DGD. However, it should be noted that geological disposal is already being developed internationally for high-level radioactive waste , which requires far more stringent containment than plastics. This demonstrates that stable deep formations do exist and can be evaluated rigorously . We do not claim that all geological settings are suitable. Rather, we argue that some subset of formations may meet the necessary stability criteria — and that this deserves assessment. 4. “Comparison with nuclear waste is misleading” We agree that radioactive waste is vastly more hazardous. Our comparison does not imply equivalence of risk . The analogy is limited to timescale : both classes of material persist on century-to-millennium scales, both create cumulative environmental burden. Thus, the analogy is conceptual, not risk-equivalence-based. We have clarified this in the revised text. 5. “Competition for underground space (e.g., nuclear waste, CO ₂ storage)” This is again a valid point — and another reason why quantitative assessments are needed . However, current planning for geological repositories is not expected to occupy all suitable formations globally. The Earth’s crust is vast, and different formations may be suited for different materials. We do not argue that DGD must proceed — only that it should be considered among strategic options for long-term isolation of persistent wastes . 6. “Alleged ‘myth’ regarding land-based contribution to marine plastic pollution” We acknowledge the Reviewer’s concern. We have revised the text to: reflect uncertainty ranges, avoid implying precision where none exists, and cite recent estimates alongside earlier work. We agree that estimates differ and this is now clearly stated. 7. “Recycling figures quoted incorrectly / outdated production data” We thank the Reviewer for drawing attention to this. We have revised the manuscript to: ensure consistency with OECD and other authoritative sources, update global production estimates, correct the quoted recycling percentages. We are grateful for this correction. 8. “Future reuse of deposited plastic is speculative” We accept this point. We have clarified that potential future retrieval is hypothetical , and that the primary argument for DGD remains long-term isolation , not resource banking. 9. “Plastic pollution is linked to overproduction, not only consumer behaviour” We fully agree. The revised text reflects that: structural production dynamics, insufficient waste management capacity, and global inequalities are key drivers of environmental leakage. 10. “Insufficient demonstration of feasibility in the Methods/Results” We agree that the article does not supply engineering feasibility evidence — because it is not intended as an engineering design study. Instead, it is a conceptual Opinion Article arguing that DGD deserves structured scientific evaluation rather than being dismissed a priori . We are grateful to the Reviewer for their thoughtful engagement with our work. The primary purpose of this Opinion Article was not to present a finalized engineering solution, but rather to place a new idea into the scientific domain and initiate discussion — even if only among a limited readership. We also believe that the Review process itself illustrates an enduring feature of academic life: genuinely new ideas often encounter resistance, particularly when they challenge established hierarchies of thought. Such resistance is natural and even necessary — it sharpens arguments and clarifies assumptions. At the same time, it reinforces the importance of preserving intellectual space for unconventional perspectives, especially in areas where conventional approaches alone have not solved the problem. In summary, we remain convinced that the idea merits discussion, irrespective of whether one ultimately supports or rejects it. If the article has succeeded in stimulating such discussion, then it has fulfilled its intended purpose Response to Reviewer: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the careful, detailed and critical evaluation of our Opinion Article and for the opportunity to clarify several points. We acknowledge that the topic of deep geological disposal (DGD) of plastic waste is unconventional and controversial. Precisely for this reason, we consider it important that it is openly discussed in the scientific literature. Below, we address the Reviewer's main concerns point-by-point. General position of the Reviewer: The Reviewer states that they disagree with the concept because it is not aligned with the waste hierarchy, and that they doubt feasibility, scalability and long-term environmental safety. We fully respect this position. However, our article does not propose DGD as a replacement for the waste hierarchy , but as a complementary, last-resort strategy for those fractions of plastic waste that: cannot currently be recycled, are being persistently mismanaged, and contribute to long-term environmental loading. This is clarified in several parts of the manuscript. The intention of the Opinion Article is to explore whether DGD deserves consideration alongside existing measures rather than to claim that it should become a dominant or primary strategy. 1. “No data are provided to support that this is a good idea” / “Scalability and capacity are unclear” We agree with the Reviewer that quantitative modelling of global storage potential versus projected plastic waste generation would be highly desirable. However, such work requires interdisciplinary collaboration between geologists, mining engineers, waste scientists and economists — and currently no such models exist in the literature . The aim of the Opinion Article is to open this line of inquiry , not to prematurely close it. We explicitly acknowledge that feasibility depends on: geological availability, storage integrity, cost and infrastructure, interaction with other societal priorities. Therefore, the absence of full capacity models should be viewed not as a weakness of logic, but as an indication of an emerging research direction that requires development . We also emphasise that DGD is not proposed for 100% of global plastic waste , but potentially for a limited fraction of persistent and unrecyclable waste . Thus, its scalability must be evaluated in that narrower context. 2. “Implementation challenges in low-income countries make DGD unrealistic” We agree that insufficient waste collection remains a critical bottleneck globally. However, any advanced waste management strategy — including recycling and controlled incineration — depends on improving collection systems. Therefore, improving waste collection is not an argument against DGD specifically, but a shared prerequisite across all management approaches . Our intention is not to provide a financial blueprint, but to state that if unrecyclable plastic must be isolated for centuries to millennia, deep stable formations may be one of few environments capable of achieving this . 3. “Geological instability and climate-related hazards may compromise DGD safety” This is an important and valid consideration. We agree that: long-term hazard assessment, site-specific geological stability studies, and climate-sensitivity analyses are indispensable for any future exploration of DGD. However, it should be noted that geological disposal is already being developed internationally for high-level radioactive waste , which requires far more stringent containment than plastics. This demonstrates that stable deep formations do exist and can be evaluated rigorously . We do not claim that all geological settings are suitable. Rather, we argue that some subset of formations may meet the necessary stability criteria — and that this deserves assessment. 4. “Comparison with nuclear waste is misleading” We agree that radioactive waste is vastly more hazardous. Our comparison does not imply equivalence of risk . The analogy is limited to timescale : both classes of material persist on century-to-millennium scales, both create cumulative environmental burden. Thus, the analogy is conceptual, not risk-equivalence-based. We have clarified this in the revised text. 5. “Competition for underground space (e.g., nuclear waste, CO ₂ storage)” This is again a valid point — and another reason why quantitative assessments are needed . However, current planning for geological repositories is not expected to occupy all suitable formations globally. The Earth’s crust is vast, and different formations may be suited for different materials. We do not argue that DGD must proceed — only that it should be considered among strategic options for long-term isolation of persistent wastes . 6. “Alleged ‘myth’ regarding land-based contribution to marine plastic pollution” We acknowledge the Reviewer’s concern. We have revised the text to: reflect uncertainty ranges, avoid implying precision where none exists, and cite recent estimates alongside earlier work. We agree that estimates differ and this is now clearly stated. 7. “Recycling figures quoted incorrectly / outdated production data” We thank the Reviewer for drawing attention to this. We have revised the manuscript to: ensure consistency with OECD and other authoritative sources, update global production estimates, correct the quoted recycling percentages. We are grateful for this correction. 8. “Future reuse of deposited plastic is speculative” We accept this point. We have clarified that potential future retrieval is hypothetical , and that the primary argument for DGD remains long-term isolation , not resource banking. 9. “Plastic pollution is linked to overproduction, not only consumer behaviour” We fully agree. The revised text reflects that: structural production dynamics, insufficient waste management capacity, and global inequalities are key drivers of environmental leakage. 10. “Insufficient demonstration of feasibility in the Methods/Results” We agree that the article does not supply engineering feasibility evidence — because it is not intended as an engineering design study. Instead, it is a conceptual Opinion Article arguing that DGD deserves structured scientific evaluation rather than being dismissed a priori . We are grateful to the Reviewer for their thoughtful engagement with our work. The primary purpose of this Opinion Article was not to present a finalized engineering solution, but rather to place a new idea into the scientific domain and initiate discussion — even if only among a limited readership. We also believe that the Review process itself illustrates an enduring feature of academic life: genuinely new ideas often encounter resistance, particularly when they challenge established hierarchies of thought. Such resistance is natural and even necessary — it sharpens arguments and clarifies assumptions. At the same time, it reinforces the importance of preserving intellectual space for unconventional perspectives, especially in areas where conventional approaches alone have not solved the problem. In summary, we remain convinced that the idea merits discussion, irrespective of whether one ultimately supports or rejects it. If the article has succeeded in stimulating such discussion, then it has fulfilled its intended purpose Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Cowger W. Reviewer Report For: Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.184634.r398933 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v2#referee-response-398933 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 29 Jul 2025 Win Cowger , The Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research, Long Beach, California, USA Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.184634.r398933 I have reviewed the new manuscript and authors comments. I think the manuscript is greatly improved and am ok with moving to accept it. In general I have many fewer disagreements with the new manuscript and the ones that I ... Continue reading READ ALL I have reviewed the new manuscript and authors comments. I think the manuscript is greatly improved and am ok with moving to accept it. In general I have many fewer disagreements with the new manuscript and the ones that I have are more about my own personal opinions rather than the substance of the paper and arguments the author is making. I do recommend the author check the manuscript one more time as I did find a grammatical or formatting error "environment so irresponsibly with plastic васте is that this waste has". Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Waste management, plastic pollution, watershed fate and transport I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Cowger W. Reviewer Report For: Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.184634.r398933 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v2#referee-response-398933 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 12 Aug 2025 Hayk Minasyan , Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia 12 Aug 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. Win Cowger, Thank you very much for your feedback on the second version of my article. Your constructive and unbiased review of the first version has significantly improved ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Win Cowger, Thank you very much for your feedback on the second version of my article. Your constructive and unbiased review of the first version has significantly improved the article. Your comments are especially valuable as you are a leading, recognized, and respected researcher and expert in the field. Thank you Sincerely Hayk Minasyan P.S. The error you pointed out is the result of incorrect formatting of the fonts of the word "waste". I have asked the editorial team of the journal to correct the error. Dear Dr. Win Cowger, Thank you very much for your feedback on the second version of my article. Your constructive and unbiased review of the first version has significantly improved the article. Your comments are especially valuable as you are a leading, recognized, and respected researcher and expert in the field. Thank you Sincerely Hayk Minasyan P.S. The error you pointed out is the result of incorrect formatting of the fonts of the word "waste". I have asked the editorial team of the journal to correct the error. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 12 Aug 2025 Hayk Minasyan , Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia 12 Aug 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. Win Cowger, Thank you very much for your feedback on the second version of my article. Your constructive and unbiased review of the first version has significantly improved ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Win Cowger, Thank you very much for your feedback on the second version of my article. Your constructive and unbiased review of the first version has significantly improved the article. Your comments are especially valuable as you are a leading, recognized, and respected researcher and expert in the field. Thank you Sincerely Hayk Minasyan P.S. The error you pointed out is the result of incorrect formatting of the fonts of the word "waste". I have asked the editorial team of the journal to correct the error. Dear Dr. Win Cowger, Thank you very much for your feedback on the second version of my article. Your constructive and unbiased review of the first version has significantly improved the article. Your comments are especially valuable as you are a leading, recognized, and respected researcher and expert in the field. Thank you Sincerely Hayk Minasyan P.S. The error you pointed out is the result of incorrect formatting of the fonts of the word "waste". I have asked the editorial team of the journal to correct the error. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 17 May 2024 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Cowger W. Reviewer Report For: Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.164194.r389475 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v1#referee-response-389475 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 19 Jun 2025 Win Cowger , The Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research, Long Beach, California, USA Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.164194.r389475 Summary: This is a commentary on the author's perspective about whether deep geological disposal of plastic makes sense and how it could be achieved. Major Issues: - Abstract not standard format, split into one two ... Continue reading READ ALL Summary: This is a commentary on the author's perspective about whether deep geological disposal of plastic makes sense and how it could be achieved. Major Issues: - Abstract not standard format, split into one two sentence paragraph and one longer one. - "70% of plastic is polluting the environment" seems high, papers cited are not primary literature for that number. I recommend looking into the original literature those numbers came from and determine if that is accurate and cite the original source. - This sentence is confusing: "For example, it forms The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which quickly captures new water surfaces ( Egger et al., 2020 )." - Many plastics in introduction just say there are large amounts of plastic, I think as a scientific study there should be numbers specifically stated, not just large amounts. For example, there are sources you can cite for how much plastic is in the ocean surface. I have added a few. - The first two sentences in the discussion could be combined. - Unclear in text what the author means by plastic disintegration, do they mean leachates, microplastics, nanoplastics? - Some of the first paragraph of the discussion seems unnecessary, for example listing off dates of different nuclear power plant developments. - I think more background on what deep geological disposal is in the introduction would be helpful. - The IAEA is already working heavily on plastic pollution, I don't know if it is necessary to have a new agency. - What is "the cost of plastic ecology"? - The case for deep geological disposal seems like a very similar strategy as landfilling and this is not discussed in the current manuscript, why not just landfill plastic? It is clear to me why you would want to separate radioactive waste into its own long term management stream. - Funding strategy seems convoluted, on one side it seems like the author is advocating for plastic to remain in circulation and have higher value, on the other it advocates for disposal and containment. Good please keep: - I do agree with the authors that this is a new concept worth discussing and theorizing about. Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature? Partly Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? Partly Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature? Partly Are the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments? Partly References 1. Eriksen M, Cowger W, Erdle L, Coffin S, et al.: A growing plastic smog, now estimated to be over 170 trillion plastic particles afloat in the world’s oceans—Urgent solutions required. PLOS ONE . 2023; 18 (3). Publisher Full Text 2. Kaandorp M, Lobelle D, Kehl C, Dijkstra H, et al.: Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debris. Nature Geoscience . 2023; 16 (8): 689-694 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Waste management, plastic pollution, watershed fate and transport I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Cowger W. Reviewer Report For: Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.164194.r389475 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v1#referee-response-389475 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 23 Jul 2025 Hayk Minasyan , Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia 23 Jul 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. Win Cowger, Thank you very much for your valuable comments. I have revised the manuscript according to them. Below is my response to your criticism and suggestions. ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Win Cowger, Thank you very much for your valuable comments. I have revised the manuscript according to them. Below is my response to your criticism and suggestions. -Reviewer: Abstract not standard format, split into one two sentence paragraph and one longer one. Response : Thank you for pointing this out. I have re-written the abstract. - Reviewer: "70% of plastic is polluting the environment" seems high, papers cited are not primary literature for that number. I recommend looking into the original literature those numbers came from and determine if that is accurate and cite the original source. Response : I have replaced the data by the results of 2025 study (primary literature (Houssini et al., 2025). - Reviewer: This sentence is confusing: "For example, it forms The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which quickly captures new water surfaces ( Egger et al., 2020 )." Response : I have removed that sentence. It is not critical for presenting the concept of DGD. - Reviewer: Many plastics in introduction just say there are large amounts of plastic, I think as a scientific study there should be numbers specifically stated, not just large amounts. For example, there are sources you can cite for how much plastic is in the ocean surface. I have added a few. Response : I agree, that precise numbers should be stated. Special thanks for your references: I have included their data to the article (Eriksen et al., 2023; Kaandorp et al.; 2023) - Reviewer: The first two sentences in the discussion could be combined. Response : Agree. I have combined the first two sentences in the discussion. - Reviewer: Unclear in text what the author means by plastic disintegration, do they mean leachates, microplastics, nanoplastics? Response : I have revised the text for more concrete explanation of the meaning of plastic disintegration. - Reviewer: Some of the first paragraph of the discussion seems unnecessary, for example listing off dates of different nuclear power plant developments. Response : I agree with you. I have removed the listing of different nuclear power plant developments from the text. - Reviewer: I think more background on what deep geological disposal is in the introduction would be helpful. Response : Thank you for your suggestion. I have added more background on what deep geological disposal is in the introduction. - Reviewer: The IAEA is already working heavily on plastic pollution, I don't know if it is necessary to have a new agency. Response : I have removed the fragment of the article regarding IAEA - Reviewer: What is "the cost of plastic ecology"? Response : Thank you for your question. This concept encompasses both: a). Direct economic costs : cleanup, waste infrastructure, lost tourism and fishing revenue, health care due to contamination, infrastructure damage (e.g., flooding); b). Ecological costs : pollution of marine and terrestrial ecosystems, greenhouse emissions, biodiversity losses, chemicals leaching, damage to ecosystem services. The discussion of “the cost of plastic ecology” is not indispensable to understand DGD concept and I have removed it from the text. References: 1. Cordier, Mateo, Takuro Uehara, Bethany Jorgensen, and Juan Baztan. “Reducing Plastic Production: Economic Loss or Environmental Gain?” Cambridge Prisms: Plastics 2 (2024): e2. https://doi.org/10.1017/plc.2024.3 . 2. “Lifetime Cost of Plastic 10 Times Higher for Low-Income Countries than Rich Ones, Revealing Cri.” Accessed July 1, 2025. https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10004441/lifetime-cost-plastic 3. “The Cost of Preventing Ocean Plastic Pollution.” OECD Environment Working Papers, March 4, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1787/5c41963b-en . 4. Beaumont, Nicola J., Margrethe Aanesen, Melanie C. Austen, Tobias Börger, James R. Clark, Matthew Cole, Tara Hooper, Penelope K. Lindeque, Christine Pascoe, and Kayleigh J. Wyles. “Global Ecological, Social and Economic Impacts of Marine Plastic.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 142 (May 2019): 189–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.022 - Reviewer: The case for deep geological disposal seems like a very similar strategy as landfilling and this is not discussed in the current manuscript, why not just landfill plastic? It is clear to me why you would want to separate radioactive waste into its own long term management stream. Response : Following your critical comment, I discussed and showed in the last paragraph of the Introduction the differences and numerous advantages of DGD over landfilling. - Reviewer: Funding strategy seems convoluted, on one side it seems like the author is advocating for plastic to remain in circulation and have higher value, on the other it advocates for disposal and containment. Response : The funding concerns plastic waste and is aimed at stimulating its selective collection for further GDG. I have added explanations in the relevant parts of the text for greater clarity. Thank you again for your comments and suggestions Sincerely Hayk Minasyan Dear Dr. Win Cowger, Thank you very much for your valuable comments. I have revised the manuscript according to them. Below is my response to your criticism and suggestions. -Reviewer: Abstract not standard format, split into one two sentence paragraph and one longer one. Response : Thank you for pointing this out. I have re-written the abstract. - Reviewer: "70% of plastic is polluting the environment" seems high, papers cited are not primary literature for that number. I recommend looking into the original literature those numbers came from and determine if that is accurate and cite the original source. Response : I have replaced the data by the results of 2025 study (primary literature (Houssini et al., 2025). - Reviewer: This sentence is confusing: "For example, it forms The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which quickly captures new water surfaces ( Egger et al., 2020 )." Response : I have removed that sentence. It is not critical for presenting the concept of DGD. - Reviewer: Many plastics in introduction just say there are large amounts of plastic, I think as a scientific study there should be numbers specifically stated, not just large amounts. For example, there are sources you can cite for how much plastic is in the ocean surface. I have added a few. Response : I agree, that precise numbers should be stated. Special thanks for your references: I have included their data to the article (Eriksen et al., 2023; Kaandorp et al.; 2023) - Reviewer: The first two sentences in the discussion could be combined. Response : Agree. I have combined the first two sentences in the discussion. - Reviewer: Unclear in text what the author means by plastic disintegration, do they mean leachates, microplastics, nanoplastics? Response : I have revised the text for more concrete explanation of the meaning of plastic disintegration. - Reviewer: Some of the first paragraph of the discussion seems unnecessary, for example listing off dates of different nuclear power plant developments. Response : I agree with you. I have removed the listing of different nuclear power plant developments from the text. - Reviewer: I think more background on what deep geological disposal is in the introduction would be helpful. Response : Thank you for your suggestion. I have added more background on what deep geological disposal is in the introduction. - Reviewer: The IAEA is already working heavily on plastic pollution, I don't know if it is necessary to have a new agency. Response : I have removed the fragment of the article regarding IAEA - Reviewer: What is "the cost of plastic ecology"? Response : Thank you for your question. This concept encompasses both: a). Direct economic costs : cleanup, waste infrastructure, lost tourism and fishing revenue, health care due to contamination, infrastructure damage (e.g., flooding); b). Ecological costs : pollution of marine and terrestrial ecosystems, greenhouse emissions, biodiversity losses, chemicals leaching, damage to ecosystem services. The discussion of “the cost of plastic ecology” is not indispensable to understand DGD concept and I have removed it from the text. References: 1. Cordier, Mateo, Takuro Uehara, Bethany Jorgensen, and Juan Baztan. “Reducing Plastic Production: Economic Loss or Environmental Gain?” Cambridge Prisms: Plastics 2 (2024): e2. https://doi.org/10.1017/plc.2024.3 . 2. “Lifetime Cost of Plastic 10 Times Higher for Low-Income Countries than Rich Ones, Revealing Cri.” Accessed July 1, 2025. https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10004441/lifetime-cost-plastic 3. “The Cost of Preventing Ocean Plastic Pollution.” OECD Environment Working Papers, March 4, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1787/5c41963b-en . 4. Beaumont, Nicola J., Margrethe Aanesen, Melanie C. Austen, Tobias Börger, James R. Clark, Matthew Cole, Tara Hooper, Penelope K. Lindeque, Christine Pascoe, and Kayleigh J. Wyles. “Global Ecological, Social and Economic Impacts of Marine Plastic.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 142 (May 2019): 189–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.022 - Reviewer: The case for deep geological disposal seems like a very similar strategy as landfilling and this is not discussed in the current manuscript, why not just landfill plastic? It is clear to me why you would want to separate radioactive waste into its own long term management stream. Response : Following your critical comment, I discussed and showed in the last paragraph of the Introduction the differences and numerous advantages of DGD over landfilling. - Reviewer: Funding strategy seems convoluted, on one side it seems like the author is advocating for plastic to remain in circulation and have higher value, on the other it advocates for disposal and containment. Response : The funding concerns plastic waste and is aimed at stimulating its selective collection for further GDG. I have added explanations in the relevant parts of the text for greater clarity. Thank you again for your comments and suggestions Sincerely Hayk Minasyan Competing Interests: No competing interests Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 23 Jul 2025 Hayk Minasyan , Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia 23 Jul 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. Win Cowger, Thank you very much for your valuable comments. I have revised the manuscript according to them. Below is my response to your criticism and suggestions. ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Win Cowger, Thank you very much for your valuable comments. I have revised the manuscript according to them. Below is my response to your criticism and suggestions. -Reviewer: Abstract not standard format, split into one two sentence paragraph and one longer one. Response : Thank you for pointing this out. I have re-written the abstract. - Reviewer: "70% of plastic is polluting the environment" seems high, papers cited are not primary literature for that number. I recommend looking into the original literature those numbers came from and determine if that is accurate and cite the original source. Response : I have replaced the data by the results of 2025 study (primary literature (Houssini et al., 2025). - Reviewer: This sentence is confusing: "For example, it forms The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which quickly captures new water surfaces ( Egger et al., 2020 )." Response : I have removed that sentence. It is not critical for presenting the concept of DGD. - Reviewer: Many plastics in introduction just say there are large amounts of plastic, I think as a scientific study there should be numbers specifically stated, not just large amounts. For example, there are sources you can cite for how much plastic is in the ocean surface. I have added a few. Response : I agree, that precise numbers should be stated. Special thanks for your references: I have included their data to the article (Eriksen et al., 2023; Kaandorp et al.; 2023) - Reviewer: The first two sentences in the discussion could be combined. Response : Agree. I have combined the first two sentences in the discussion. - Reviewer: Unclear in text what the author means by plastic disintegration, do they mean leachates, microplastics, nanoplastics? Response : I have revised the text for more concrete explanation of the meaning of plastic disintegration. - Reviewer: Some of the first paragraph of the discussion seems unnecessary, for example listing off dates of different nuclear power plant developments. Response : I agree with you. I have removed the listing of different nuclear power plant developments from the text. - Reviewer: I think more background on what deep geological disposal is in the introduction would be helpful. Response : Thank you for your suggestion. I have added more background on what deep geological disposal is in the introduction. - Reviewer: The IAEA is already working heavily on plastic pollution, I don't know if it is necessary to have a new agency. Response : I have removed the fragment of the article regarding IAEA - Reviewer: What is "the cost of plastic ecology"? Response : Thank you for your question. This concept encompasses both: a). Direct economic costs : cleanup, waste infrastructure, lost tourism and fishing revenue, health care due to contamination, infrastructure damage (e.g., flooding); b). Ecological costs : pollution of marine and terrestrial ecosystems, greenhouse emissions, biodiversity losses, chemicals leaching, damage to ecosystem services. The discussion of “the cost of plastic ecology” is not indispensable to understand DGD concept and I have removed it from the text. References: 1. Cordier, Mateo, Takuro Uehara, Bethany Jorgensen, and Juan Baztan. “Reducing Plastic Production: Economic Loss or Environmental Gain?” Cambridge Prisms: Plastics 2 (2024): e2. https://doi.org/10.1017/plc.2024.3 . 2. “Lifetime Cost of Plastic 10 Times Higher for Low-Income Countries than Rich Ones, Revealing Cri.” Accessed July 1, 2025. https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10004441/lifetime-cost-plastic 3. “The Cost of Preventing Ocean Plastic Pollution.” OECD Environment Working Papers, March 4, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1787/5c41963b-en . 4. Beaumont, Nicola J., Margrethe Aanesen, Melanie C. Austen, Tobias Börger, James R. Clark, Matthew Cole, Tara Hooper, Penelope K. Lindeque, Christine Pascoe, and Kayleigh J. Wyles. “Global Ecological, Social and Economic Impacts of Marine Plastic.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 142 (May 2019): 189–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.022 - Reviewer: The case for deep geological disposal seems like a very similar strategy as landfilling and this is not discussed in the current manuscript, why not just landfill plastic? It is clear to me why you would want to separate radioactive waste into its own long term management stream. Response : Following your critical comment, I discussed and showed in the last paragraph of the Introduction the differences and numerous advantages of DGD over landfilling. - Reviewer: Funding strategy seems convoluted, on one side it seems like the author is advocating for plastic to remain in circulation and have higher value, on the other it advocates for disposal and containment. Response : The funding concerns plastic waste and is aimed at stimulating its selective collection for further GDG. I have added explanations in the relevant parts of the text for greater clarity. Thank you again for your comments and suggestions Sincerely Hayk Minasyan Dear Dr. Win Cowger, Thank you very much for your valuable comments. I have revised the manuscript according to them. Below is my response to your criticism and suggestions. -Reviewer: Abstract not standard format, split into one two sentence paragraph and one longer one. Response : Thank you for pointing this out. I have re-written the abstract. - Reviewer: "70% of plastic is polluting the environment" seems high, papers cited are not primary literature for that number. I recommend looking into the original literature those numbers came from and determine if that is accurate and cite the original source. Response : I have replaced the data by the results of 2025 study (primary literature (Houssini et al., 2025). - Reviewer: This sentence is confusing: "For example, it forms The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which quickly captures new water surfaces ( Egger et al., 2020 )." Response : I have removed that sentence. It is not critical for presenting the concept of DGD. - Reviewer: Many plastics in introduction just say there are large amounts of plastic, I think as a scientific study there should be numbers specifically stated, not just large amounts. For example, there are sources you can cite for how much plastic is in the ocean surface. I have added a few. Response : I agree, that precise numbers should be stated. Special thanks for your references: I have included their data to the article (Eriksen et al., 2023; Kaandorp et al.; 2023) - Reviewer: The first two sentences in the discussion could be combined. Response : Agree. I have combined the first two sentences in the discussion. - Reviewer: Unclear in text what the author means by plastic disintegration, do they mean leachates, microplastics, nanoplastics? Response : I have revised the text for more concrete explanation of the meaning of plastic disintegration. - Reviewer: Some of the first paragraph of the discussion seems unnecessary, for example listing off dates of different nuclear power plant developments. Response : I agree with you. I have removed the listing of different nuclear power plant developments from the text. - Reviewer: I think more background on what deep geological disposal is in the introduction would be helpful. Response : Thank you for your suggestion. I have added more background on what deep geological disposal is in the introduction. - Reviewer: The IAEA is already working heavily on plastic pollution, I don't know if it is necessary to have a new agency. Response : I have removed the fragment of the article regarding IAEA - Reviewer: What is "the cost of plastic ecology"? Response : Thank you for your question. This concept encompasses both: a). Direct economic costs : cleanup, waste infrastructure, lost tourism and fishing revenue, health care due to contamination, infrastructure damage (e.g., flooding); b). Ecological costs : pollution of marine and terrestrial ecosystems, greenhouse emissions, biodiversity losses, chemicals leaching, damage to ecosystem services. The discussion of “the cost of plastic ecology” is not indispensable to understand DGD concept and I have removed it from the text. References: 1. Cordier, Mateo, Takuro Uehara, Bethany Jorgensen, and Juan Baztan. “Reducing Plastic Production: Economic Loss or Environmental Gain?” Cambridge Prisms: Plastics 2 (2024): e2. https://doi.org/10.1017/plc.2024.3 . 2. “Lifetime Cost of Plastic 10 Times Higher for Low-Income Countries than Rich Ones, Revealing Cri.” Accessed July 1, 2025. https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10004441/lifetime-cost-plastic 3. “The Cost of Preventing Ocean Plastic Pollution.” OECD Environment Working Papers, March 4, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1787/5c41963b-en . 4. Beaumont, Nicola J., Margrethe Aanesen, Melanie C. Austen, Tobias Börger, James R. Clark, Matthew Cole, Tara Hooper, Penelope K. Lindeque, Christine Pascoe, and Kayleigh J. Wyles. “Global Ecological, Social and Economic Impacts of Marine Plastic.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 142 (May 2019): 189–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.022 - Reviewer: The case for deep geological disposal seems like a very similar strategy as landfilling and this is not discussed in the current manuscript, why not just landfill plastic? It is clear to me why you would want to separate radioactive waste into its own long term management stream. Response : Following your critical comment, I discussed and showed in the last paragraph of the Introduction the differences and numerous advantages of DGD over landfilling. - Reviewer: Funding strategy seems convoluted, on one side it seems like the author is advocating for plastic to remain in circulation and have higher value, on the other it advocates for disposal and containment. Response : The funding concerns plastic waste and is aimed at stimulating its selective collection for further GDG. I have added explanations in the relevant parts of the text for greater clarity. Thank you again for your comments and suggestions Sincerely Hayk Minasyan Competing Interests: No competing interests Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Vaverková M. Reviewer Report For: Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.164194.r319698 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v1#referee-response-319698 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 10 Sep 2024 Magdalena Vaverková , Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.164194.r319698 As someone who has been engaged in waste management for over 20 years, I found the article’s premise—deep geological disposal of plastic waste—intriguing, yet deeply problematic. While the article proposes this as a new approach to managing the vast quantities ... Continue reading READ ALL As someone who has been engaged in waste management for over 20 years, I found the article’s premise—deep geological disposal of plastic waste—intriguing, yet deeply problematic. While the article proposes this as a new approach to managing the vast quantities of mismanaged plastic waste (MPW), it overlooks several crucial aspects of plastic waste management that have proven to be more practical, efficient, and sustainable. I believe this concept lacks feasibility both from an economic and environmental standpoint. One of the most striking issues with the article is the inconsistency in its discussion of plastic’s chemical nature. On one hand, it is acknowledged that plastic can take hundreds to thousands of years to decompose, suggesting that it is inert and resistant to degradation. On the other hand, the article raises concerns about leachates and environmental contamination, which implies that plastic waste does, in fact, react and break down into harmful substances. These contradictions undermine the argument for deep geological disposal. If plastic is inert and non-reactive, the environmental risk should be minimal. However, if plastics release harmful chemicals, placing them in deep geological layers could lead to unforeseen contamination, much like the challenges associated with hazardous waste disposal. The suggestion to treat plastic waste similarly to nuclear waste by storing it in deep geological repositories overlooks the fact that plastic waste is far more abundant, widely dispersed, and less hazardous than nuclear waste. The costs associated with collecting, transporting, and storing plastic in deep geological repositories would be astronomical, and these financial burdens far outweigh any potential benefits. Furthermore, nuclear waste is stored this way due to its high-level, long-term radioactive danger. Plastic waste, while a significant pollutant, can be more effectively managed through other methods, including recycling, incineration for energy recovery, and the development of biodegradable alternatives. Over the years, I have seen substantial progress in both recycling technologies and waste-to-energy systems. Many types of plastic waste, particularly PET, can be effectively recycled, and non-recyclable plastics can be incinerated in highly regulated incinerators to produce energy. Japan’s approach to waste management, for example, includes advanced waste-to-energy systems that capture a significant amount of the country’s energy from non-recyclable waste while keeping emissions under tight control. By contrast, the article’s deep geological disposal concept ignores the benefits of energy recovery from plastic incineration. Given the enormous global need for energy and the ongoing development of incineration technologies that meet modern environmental standards, it would make much more sense to focus on optimizing energy recovery from plastic waste than to bury it in geological sites. Additionally, improving recycling infrastructure and reducing single-use plastics are more viable long-term strategies than deep geological disposal. The article does highlight one concept worth exploring further—treating plastic waste as a valuable commodity. However, rather than applying this idea to deep geological storage, it should be linked to the principles of a circular economy. In recent years, there has been growing interest in treating waste as a resource, and plastics are no exception. By developing better market mechanisms for plastic waste, particularly through innovations in chemical recycling or even upcycling processes, we could unlock economic opportunities while addressing the environmental challenges posed by plastic pollution. Conclusion While the article raises important concerns about the growing problem of plastic waste, the proposed solution of deep geological disposal is neither economically nor environmentally viable. Decades of experience in waste management have shown that more practical solutions—such as advanced recycling, waste-to-energy, and policy-driven reductions in plastic production—are far more promising. Furthermore, there is significant potential to treat plastic waste as a resource within a circular economy framework, which could help mitigate the environmental crisis caused by plastic waste without resorting to drastic, impractical measures like deep geological disposal. In my professional view, the future of plastic waste management lies in innovation, sustainable technologies, and responsible consumption, not in burying the problem underground. Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature? Yes Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? No Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature? No Are the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments? No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Waste management I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Vaverková M. Reviewer Report For: Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.164194.r319698 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v1#referee-response-319698 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 25 Oct 2024 Hayk Minasyan , Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia 25 Oct 2024 Author Response Article Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons Hayk Minasyan Hayk Minasyna’s response to the review of Magdalena Vaverková Author Response to Reviewer Author response : Dear ... Continue reading Article Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons Hayk Minasyan Hayk Minasyna’s response to the review of Magdalena Vaverková Author Response to Reviewer Author response : Dear Magdalena Vaverková, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland Thank you for giving me the opportunity to start a discussion with you regarding your critical comments. I wrote at the end of my article: “This approach to plastic waste management requires future research and discussion regarding the optimization of the concept, its practices, regulations, and policies.” Unfortunately, you did not come up with any specific rational proposal, analysis of the concept, or attempt to optimize the concept or use its elements that, in your opinion, could be useful. However, any radically negative response can be useful in igniting debate and bringing the idea of ​​deep geological disposal of plastic waste to the attention of open-minded researchers. I will try to provide references, where possible, from my article, so that they are easier to find. Reviewer comments As someone who has been engaged in waste management for over 20 years, I found the article’s premise—deep geological disposal of plastic waste—intriguing, yet deeply problematic. Author response : In the last 20 years, the amount of plastic waste has more than doubled (OECD Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060 OECD Publishing (2022) https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/global-plastics-outlook_aa1edf33-en ] It means that a solution to the problem has not yet been found. Reviewer comments While the article proposes this as a new approach to managing the vast quantities of mismanaged plastic waste (MPW), it overlooks several crucial aspects of plastic waste management that have proven to be more practical, efficient, and sustainable. I believe this concept lacks feasibility both from an economic and environmental standpoint. Author response : While belief holds great value in many discussions, it is not typically considered a scientific measure. In order to assess the feasibility of the concept from both economic and environmental perspectives, it would be helpful if the reviewer could present relevant economic calculations, scientific data, and detailed explanations. Reviewer comments One of the most striking issues with the article is the inconsistency in its discussion of plastic’s chemical nature. On one hand, it is acknowledged that plastic can take hundreds to thousands of years to decompose, suggesting that it is inert and resistant to degradation. On the other hand, the article raises concerns about leachates and environmental contamination, which implies that plastic waste does react and break down into harmful substances. Author response : There is no inconsistency: plastic waste can generate leachate, a liquid that forms when water percolates through waste. In deep geological disposal with appropriate technical conditions (isolation, sealing walls for liquids, etc.) plastic waste breakdown is excluded and leachate generation is impossible . Reviewer comments These contradictions undermine the argument for deep geological disposal. Author response : There are no contradictions. In a duly technical approach, nothing undermines the idea of deep geological disposal. Reviewer comments If plastic is inert and non-reactive, the environmental risk should be minimal. However, if plastics release harmful chemicals, placing them in deep geological layers could lead to unforeseen contamination, much like the challenges associated with hazardous waste disposal. . Author response : Disposal of plastic waste in deep and dry repositories is safe and can’t lead to contamination. Reviewer comments The suggestion to treat plastic waste similarly to nuclear waste by storing it in deep geological repositories overlooks the fact that plastic waste is far more abundant, widely dispersed, and less hazardous than nuclear waste. Author response : Yes, plastic waste is less hazardous and more abundant than nuclear waste, but this argument is not something principally against deep geological disposal of plastic waste. Reviewer comments The costs associated with collecting, transporting, and storing plastic in deep geological repositories would be astronomical, and these financial burdens far outweigh any potential benefits. Author response : To make such assertions with confidence, it would also be expected that the reviewer possess a high level of expertise in the field of economics, supported by financial calculations and thorough estimates. Moreover, the reviewer appears to overlook the current limitations of methods like recycling, incineration for energy recovery, and the development of biodegradable alternatives. These approaches, while promising, have yet to demonstrate sufficient effectiveness to curb the rapid accumulation of plastic waste. Reviewer comments Furthermore, nuclear waste is stored this way due to its top-level, long-term radioactive danger. Author response : Yes, nuclear waste is stored this way due to its high-level, long-term radioactive danger, but again, it does not mean that plastic waste may not be stored by deep geological technology. Reviewer comments Plastic waste, while a significant pollutant, can be more effectively managed through other methods, including recycling, incineration for energy recovery, and the development of biodegradable alternatives. Author response : The reviewer ignores the fact that the methods she mentions, including recycling, incineration for energy recovery, and the development of biodegradable alternatives, are not yet effective enough and plastic waste continues to accumulate rapidly. I would like to draw the reviewer's attention to the fact that no more than 10% of plastic waste has been recycled, 11% burned, 8% buried, and the remaining 70% pollutes the environment ( Enfrin et al., 2019 , Zaman and Newman, 2021 ). Reviewer comments Over the years, I have seen substantial progress in both recycling technologies and waste-to-energy systems. Author response : Nevertheless, at present recycling technology processes only 10% of plastic waste; waste-to-energy technology burns 11% of plastic waste. Reviewer comments Many types of plastic waste, particularly PET, can be effectively recycled, and non-recyclable plastics can be incinerated in highly regulated incinerators to produce energy. Author response : While recycling is an important tool, it cannot be viewed as a standalone solution to the plastic waste crisis. The complex nature of the problem requires more than one method of management. By the year 2060, there is a projected trajectory for plastic waste to experience an approximately threefold increase. Within this context, nearly 50 % of the total plastic waste will continue to be deposited in landfills, with a recycling rate of <20 % (OECD Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060 OECD Publishing (2022) https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/global-plastics-outlook_aa1edf33-en ). In addition, recycling plastic is not preferable in most cases because it is technologically complex and expensive, many types of plastic cannot be reused, and finally, it is impossible to recycle the same plastic endlessly. References: Aydin M, Degirmenci T, Bozatli O, Balsalobre-Lorente D. Fresh evidence of the impact of economic complexity, health expenditure, natural resources, plastic consumption, and renewable energy in air pollution deaths in the USA? An empirical approach. Science of The Total Environment [Internet]. 2024 Apr;921:171127. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S004896972401266X ) Dong L, Huang Z, Qin Y, Zhi W. Industrialized fine physical regeneration process and economic benefit assessment for recycling waste HDPE containers. Journal of Cleaner Production [Internet]. 2024 Apr [cited 2024 Sep 10];447:141477. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652624009259 Merrington A. Recycling of plastics. In: Applied Plastics Engineering Handbook [Internet]. Elsevier; 2024 [cited 2024 Sep 10]. p. 191–217. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780323886673000060 Reviewer comments Japan’s approach to waste management, for example, includes advanced waste-to-energy systems that capture a significant amount of the country’s energy from non-recyclable waste while keeping emissions under tight control. By contrast, the article’s deep geological disposal concept ignores the benefits of energy recovery from plastic incineration. Author response : It seems there may have been some misunderstanding or misinterpretation of my article. The reviewer contrasts the ideas presented in the article with current waste management technologies without offering a clear logical basis for such conclusions. This leads to certain assumptions that remain unproven. The idea of deep geological disposal of plastic waste does not ignore other technologies of waste management including plastic incineration. It should be used simultaneously with other technologies. In combination with all modern technologies of plastic waste management, deep geological disposal may help to mitigate the problem of plastic waste. As to plastic incineration, it is dangerous for the environment due to ecological risks: Air Pollution : Incineration releases toxic heavy metals, dioxins, furans, into the air. They poison humans and animals. Dioxins and furans accumulate in the food chain. Greenhouse Gas Emissions : Burning plastic releases carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases, contributing to climate change. Toxic Ash : Incineration generates toxic ash that needs to be disposed of in landfills and can contaminate soil and water. Microplastics : Incineration may produce microplastics that can be released into the atmosphere or water systems, causing further ecological harm. Due to these risks, incineration is not a preferred method for managing plastic waste. References: Luo L, Guo S, Shen D, Shentu J, Lu L, Qi S, et al. Characteristics and release potential of microplastics in municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash. Chemosphere [Internet]. 2024 Sep [cited 2024 Sep 10];364:143163. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0045653524020605 Jin M, Sun M, Liu J, Dong C, Xue J. Influence of operating parameters on the yield of micro-plastics from plastics incineration. Science of The Total Environment [Internet]. 2024 Feb [cited 2024 Sep 10];912:169347. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048969723079779 Rogers K, WaMaina E, Barber A, Masood S, Love C, Kim YH, et al. Emissions from plastic incineration induce inflammation, oxidative stress, and impaired bioenergetics in primary human respiratory epithelial cells. Toxicological Sciences [Internet]. 2024 May 28 [cited 2024 Sep 10];199(2):301–15. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/199/2/301/7636471 Reviewer comments Given the enormous global need for energy and the ongoing development of incineration technologies that meet modern environmental standards, it would make much more sense to focus on optimizing energy recovery from plastic waste than to bury it in geological sites. Author response : The reviewer strongly overestimates plastic incineration. At present, there are no incineration technologies that meet modern environmental standards: References: Jung S, Jung H, Ahn Y. Plastic-to-energy: Process and economic–environmental assessment of a recycling technology. Process Safety and Environmental Protection [Internet]. 2024 Mar [cited 2024 Sep 10];183:1051–8. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0957582024000806 Pathak G, Nichter M, Hardon A, Moyer E. The open burning of plastic wastes is an urgent global health issue. Annals of Global Health [Internet]. 2024 Jan 12 [cited 2024 Sep 10];90(1):3. Available from: https://annalsofglobalhealth.org/articles/10.5334/aogh.4232/ Besides, energy recovery from plastic waste (plastic incineration) results in irreversible loss of plastic. Burying plastic in the ground preserves plastic for future generations of people when the planet's hydrocarbons run out. As for energy production, from the ecological point of view, it must be obtained from renewable sources such as solar energy, wind, hydropower, etc. In this sense, nuclear energy is much more efficient and ecologically safer than burning plastic. References: Pourasl HH, Barenji RV, Khojastehnezhad VM. Solar energy status in the world: A comprehensive review. Energy Reports [Internet]. 2023 Nov [cited 2024 Sep 11];10:3474–93. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352484723014579 Kaldellis JK, Boulogiorgou D. Renewable energy: Wind energy. In: Living with Climate Change [Internet]. Elsevier; 2024 [cited 2024 Sep 11]. p. 513–57. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780443185151000174 Hatamkhani A, Moridi A, Haghighi AT. Incorporating ecosystem services value into the optimal development of hydropower projects. Renewable Energy [Internet]. 2023 Feb [cited 2024 Sep 11];203:495–505. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960148122018754 Krūmiņš J, Kļaviņš M. Investigating the potential of nuclear energy in achieving a carbon-free energy future. Energies [Internet]. 2023 Apr 22 [cited 2024 Sep 11];16(9):3612. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/9/3612 Reviewer comments Additionally, improving recycling infrastructure and reducing single-use plastics are more viable long-term strategies than deep geological disposal. Author response : The reviewer appears to contrast the ideas presented in the article with existing plastic waste management technologies without providing clear justification for these comparisons, which seems to lead to conclusions that may not be fully substantiated. Reviewer comments The article does highlight one concept worth exploring further—treating plastic waste as a valuable commodity. However, rather than applying this idea to deep geological storage, it should be linked to the principles of a circular economy. Author response : Plastic is a valuable commodity and it is true for both deep geological storage and the principles of a circular economy. It is true for all other technologies as well. The reviewer persistently contrasts deep geological disposal versus the principles of a circular economy. Applying the idea of plastic waste's monetary value to deep geological storage does not exclude its application to the principles of a circular economy and other strategies. Reviewer comments In recent years, there has been growing interest in treating waste as a resource, and plastics are no exception. By developing better market mechanisms for plastic waste, particularly through innovations in chemical recycling or even upcycling processes, we could unlock economic opportunities while addressing the environmental challenges posed by plastic pollution. Author response : It sounds like a quote from a public speech. Yes, in recent years there has been growing interest in treating waste as a resource. However, plastic waste continues to accumulate on land, seas, and oceans. Reviewer's Conclusion Reviewer comments While the article raises important concerns about the growing problem of plastic waste, the proposed solution of deep geological disposal is neither economically nor environmentally viable. Author response : Again, for such a categorical conclusion the reviewer should present economic calculations and reasonable explanations as to why deep geological disposal is not environmentally viable. Reviewer comments Decades of experience in waste management have shown that more practical solutions—such as advanced recycling, waste-to-energy, and policy-driven reductions in plastic production—are far more promising. Author response : Maybe the solutions mentioned are promising, but today plastic waste continues accumulating. Again the same statistics: 10% of waste has been recycled, 11% burned, 8% buried, and the remaining 70% pollutes the environment. Declarative statements about promising technologies do not change the catastrophic state of affairs with waste accumulation. My article proposes additional measures to collect plastic from the seas, oceans, and landfills and bury it safely as a resource for future generations. Deep geological disposal is not opposed to all other plastic waste management technologies, but is offered as an additional tool to solve together with other technologies the very serious problems facing humanity in connection with plastic waste. Reviewer comments Furthermore, there is significant potential to treat plastic waste as a resource within a circular economy framework, which could help mitigate the environmental crisis caused by plastic waste without resorting to drastic, impractical measures like deep geological disposal. In my professional view, the future of plastic waste management lies in innovation, sustainable technologies, and responsible consumption, not in burying the problem underground. Author response : Тhe reviewer frames her perspective as a personal professional stance, though it aligns with the widely accepted principles of innovation, sustainable technologies, and responsible consumption in waste management. Regarding the suggestion of burying the problem underground, the article specifically advocates for the storage of plastic waste that cannot be recycled, has already undergone multiple recycling processes, or poses significant risks if incinerated or processed by existing technologies. Unfortunately, the primary concern raised by Dr. Magdalena Vaverková centers on a rather dismissive critique of deep geological disposal, which seems to overshadow other important aspects of the article. Her stance appears to impede an objective review of other proposed ideas, such as mechanisms for collecting plastic waste from oceans, seas, and landfills, as well as the organizational, political, and financial strategies for implementing deep geological disposal. Article Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons Hayk Minasyan Hayk Minasyna’s response to the review of Magdalena Vaverková Author Response to Reviewer Author response : Dear Magdalena Vaverková, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland Thank you for giving me the opportunity to start a discussion with you regarding your critical comments. I wrote at the end of my article: “This approach to plastic waste management requires future research and discussion regarding the optimization of the concept, its practices, regulations, and policies.” Unfortunately, you did not come up with any specific rational proposal, analysis of the concept, or attempt to optimize the concept or use its elements that, in your opinion, could be useful. However, any radically negative response can be useful in igniting debate and bringing the idea of ​​deep geological disposal of plastic waste to the attention of open-minded researchers. I will try to provide references, where possible, from my article, so that they are easier to find. Reviewer comments As someone who has been engaged in waste management for over 20 years, I found the article’s premise—deep geological disposal of plastic waste—intriguing, yet deeply problematic. Author response : In the last 20 years, the amount of plastic waste has more than doubled (OECD Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060 OECD Publishing (2022) https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/global-plastics-outlook_aa1edf33-en ] It means that a solution to the problem has not yet been found. Reviewer comments While the article proposes this as a new approach to managing the vast quantities of mismanaged plastic waste (MPW), it overlooks several crucial aspects of plastic waste management that have proven to be more practical, efficient, and sustainable. I believe this concept lacks feasibility both from an economic and environmental standpoint. Author response : While belief holds great value in many discussions, it is not typically considered a scientific measure. In order to assess the feasibility of the concept from both economic and environmental perspectives, it would be helpful if the reviewer could present relevant economic calculations, scientific data, and detailed explanations. Reviewer comments One of the most striking issues with the article is the inconsistency in its discussion of plastic’s chemical nature. On one hand, it is acknowledged that plastic can take hundreds to thousands of years to decompose, suggesting that it is inert and resistant to degradation. On the other hand, the article raises concerns about leachates and environmental contamination, which implies that plastic waste does react and break down into harmful substances. Author response : There is no inconsistency: plastic waste can generate leachate, a liquid that forms when water percolates through waste. In deep geological disposal with appropriate technical conditions (isolation, sealing walls for liquids, etc.) plastic waste breakdown is excluded and leachate generation is impossible . Reviewer comments These contradictions undermine the argument for deep geological disposal. Author response : There are no contradictions. In a duly technical approach, nothing undermines the idea of deep geological disposal. Reviewer comments If plastic is inert and non-reactive, the environmental risk should be minimal. However, if plastics release harmful chemicals, placing them in deep geological layers could lead to unforeseen contamination, much like the challenges associated with hazardous waste disposal. . Author response : Disposal of plastic waste in deep and dry repositories is safe and can’t lead to contamination. Reviewer comments The suggestion to treat plastic waste similarly to nuclear waste by storing it in deep geological repositories overlooks the fact that plastic waste is far more abundant, widely dispersed, and less hazardous than nuclear waste. Author response : Yes, plastic waste is less hazardous and more abundant than nuclear waste, but this argument is not something principally against deep geological disposal of plastic waste. Reviewer comments The costs associated with collecting, transporting, and storing plastic in deep geological repositories would be astronomical, and these financial burdens far outweigh any potential benefits. Author response : To make such assertions with confidence, it would also be expected that the reviewer possess a high level of expertise in the field of economics, supported by financial calculations and thorough estimates. Moreover, the reviewer appears to overlook the current limitations of methods like recycling, incineration for energy recovery, and the development of biodegradable alternatives. These approaches, while promising, have yet to demonstrate sufficient effectiveness to curb the rapid accumulation of plastic waste. Reviewer comments Furthermore, nuclear waste is stored this way due to its top-level, long-term radioactive danger. Author response : Yes, nuclear waste is stored this way due to its high-level, long-term radioactive danger, but again, it does not mean that plastic waste may not be stored by deep geological technology. Reviewer comments Plastic waste, while a significant pollutant, can be more effectively managed through other methods, including recycling, incineration for energy recovery, and the development of biodegradable alternatives. Author response : The reviewer ignores the fact that the methods she mentions, including recycling, incineration for energy recovery, and the development of biodegradable alternatives, are not yet effective enough and plastic waste continues to accumulate rapidly. I would like to draw the reviewer's attention to the fact that no more than 10% of plastic waste has been recycled, 11% burned, 8% buried, and the remaining 70% pollutes the environment ( Enfrin et al., 2019 , Zaman and Newman, 2021 ). Reviewer comments Over the years, I have seen substantial progress in both recycling technologies and waste-to-energy systems. Author response : Nevertheless, at present recycling technology processes only 10% of plastic waste; waste-to-energy technology burns 11% of plastic waste. Reviewer comments Many types of plastic waste, particularly PET, can be effectively recycled, and non-recyclable plastics can be incinerated in highly regulated incinerators to produce energy. Author response : While recycling is an important tool, it cannot be viewed as a standalone solution to the plastic waste crisis. The complex nature of the problem requires more than one method of management. By the year 2060, there is a projected trajectory for plastic waste to experience an approximately threefold increase. Within this context, nearly 50 % of the total plastic waste will continue to be deposited in landfills, with a recycling rate of <20 % (OECD Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060 OECD Publishing (2022) https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/global-plastics-outlook_aa1edf33-en ). In addition, recycling plastic is not preferable in most cases because it is technologically complex and expensive, many types of plastic cannot be reused, and finally, it is impossible to recycle the same plastic endlessly. References: Aydin M, Degirmenci T, Bozatli O, Balsalobre-Lorente D. Fresh evidence of the impact of economic complexity, health expenditure, natural resources, plastic consumption, and renewable energy in air pollution deaths in the USA? An empirical approach. Science of The Total Environment [Internet]. 2024 Apr;921:171127. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S004896972401266X ) Dong L, Huang Z, Qin Y, Zhi W. Industrialized fine physical regeneration process and economic benefit assessment for recycling waste HDPE containers. Journal of Cleaner Production [Internet]. 2024 Apr [cited 2024 Sep 10];447:141477. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652624009259 Merrington A. Recycling of plastics. In: Applied Plastics Engineering Handbook [Internet]. Elsevier; 2024 [cited 2024 Sep 10]. p. 191–217. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780323886673000060 Reviewer comments Japan’s approach to waste management, for example, includes advanced waste-to-energy systems that capture a significant amount of the country’s energy from non-recyclable waste while keeping emissions under tight control. By contrast, the article’s deep geological disposal concept ignores the benefits of energy recovery from plastic incineration. Author response : It seems there may have been some misunderstanding or misinterpretation of my article. The reviewer contrasts the ideas presented in the article with current waste management technologies without offering a clear logical basis for such conclusions. This leads to certain assumptions that remain unproven. The idea of deep geological disposal of plastic waste does not ignore other technologies of waste management including plastic incineration. It should be used simultaneously with other technologies. In combination with all modern technologies of plastic waste management, deep geological disposal may help to mitigate the problem of plastic waste. As to plastic incineration, it is dangerous for the environment due to ecological risks: Air Pollution : Incineration releases toxic heavy metals, dioxins, furans, into the air. They poison humans and animals. Dioxins and furans accumulate in the food chain. Greenhouse Gas Emissions : Burning plastic releases carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases, contributing to climate change. Toxic Ash : Incineration generates toxic ash that needs to be disposed of in landfills and can contaminate soil and water. Microplastics : Incineration may produce microplastics that can be released into the atmosphere or water systems, causing further ecological harm. Due to these risks, incineration is not a preferred method for managing plastic waste. References: Luo L, Guo S, Shen D, Shentu J, Lu L, Qi S, et al. Characteristics and release potential of microplastics in municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash. Chemosphere [Internet]. 2024 Sep [cited 2024 Sep 10];364:143163. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0045653524020605 Jin M, Sun M, Liu J, Dong C, Xue J. Influence of operating parameters on the yield of micro-plastics from plastics incineration. Science of The Total Environment [Internet]. 2024 Feb [cited 2024 Sep 10];912:169347. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048969723079779 Rogers K, WaMaina E, Barber A, Masood S, Love C, Kim YH, et al. Emissions from plastic incineration induce inflammation, oxidative stress, and impaired bioenergetics in primary human respiratory epithelial cells. Toxicological Sciences [Internet]. 2024 May 28 [cited 2024 Sep 10];199(2):301–15. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/199/2/301/7636471 Reviewer comments Given the enormous global need for energy and the ongoing development of incineration technologies that meet modern environmental standards, it would make much more sense to focus on optimizing energy recovery from plastic waste than to bury it in geological sites. Author response : The reviewer strongly overestimates plastic incineration. At present, there are no incineration technologies that meet modern environmental standards: References: Jung S, Jung H, Ahn Y. Plastic-to-energy: Process and economic–environmental assessment of a recycling technology. Process Safety and Environmental Protection [Internet]. 2024 Mar [cited 2024 Sep 10];183:1051–8. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0957582024000806 Pathak G, Nichter M, Hardon A, Moyer E. The open burning of plastic wastes is an urgent global health issue. Annals of Global Health [Internet]. 2024 Jan 12 [cited 2024 Sep 10];90(1):3. Available from: https://annalsofglobalhealth.org/articles/10.5334/aogh.4232/ Besides, energy recovery from plastic waste (plastic incineration) results in irreversible loss of plastic. Burying plastic in the ground preserves plastic for future generations of people when the planet's hydrocarbons run out. As for energy production, from the ecological point of view, it must be obtained from renewable sources such as solar energy, wind, hydropower, etc. In this sense, nuclear energy is much more efficient and ecologically safer than burning plastic. References: Pourasl HH, Barenji RV, Khojastehnezhad VM. Solar energy status in the world: A comprehensive review. Energy Reports [Internet]. 2023 Nov [cited 2024 Sep 11];10:3474–93. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352484723014579 Kaldellis JK, Boulogiorgou D. Renewable energy: Wind energy. In: Living with Climate Change [Internet]. Elsevier; 2024 [cited 2024 Sep 11]. p. 513–57. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780443185151000174 Hatamkhani A, Moridi A, Haghighi AT. Incorporating ecosystem services value into the optimal development of hydropower projects. Renewable Energy [Internet]. 2023 Feb [cited 2024 Sep 11];203:495–505. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960148122018754 Krūmiņš J, Kļaviņš M. Investigating the potential of nuclear energy in achieving a carbon-free energy future. Energies [Internet]. 2023 Apr 22 [cited 2024 Sep 11];16(9):3612. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/9/3612 Reviewer comments Additionally, improving recycling infrastructure and reducing single-use plastics are more viable long-term strategies than deep geological disposal. Author response : The reviewer appears to contrast the ideas presented in the article with existing plastic waste management technologies without providing clear justification for these comparisons, which seems to lead to conclusions that may not be fully substantiated. Reviewer comments The article does highlight one concept worth exploring further—treating plastic waste as a valuable commodity. However, rather than applying this idea to deep geological storage, it should be linked to the principles of a circular economy. Author response : Plastic is a valuable commodity and it is true for both deep geological storage and the principles of a circular economy. It is true for all other technologies as well. The reviewer persistently contrasts deep geological disposal versus the principles of a circular economy. Applying the idea of plastic waste's monetary value to deep geological storage does not exclude its application to the principles of a circular economy and other strategies. Reviewer comments In recent years, there has been growing interest in treating waste as a resource, and plastics are no exception. By developing better market mechanisms for plastic waste, particularly through innovations in chemical recycling or even upcycling processes, we could unlock economic opportunities while addressing the environmental challenges posed by plastic pollution. Author response : It sounds like a quote from a public speech. Yes, in recent years there has been growing interest in treating waste as a resource. However, plastic waste continues to accumulate on land, seas, and oceans. Reviewer's Conclusion Reviewer comments While the article raises important concerns about the growing problem of plastic waste, the proposed solution of deep geological disposal is neither economically nor environmentally viable. Author response : Again, for such a categorical conclusion the reviewer should present economic calculations and reasonable explanations as to why deep geological disposal is not environmentally viable. Reviewer comments Decades of experience in waste management have shown that more practical solutions—such as advanced recycling, waste-to-energy, and policy-driven reductions in plastic production—are far more promising. Author response : Maybe the solutions mentioned are promising, but today plastic waste continues accumulating. Again the same statistics: 10% of waste has been recycled, 11% burned, 8% buried, and the remaining 70% pollutes the environment. Declarative statements about promising technologies do not change the catastrophic state of affairs with waste accumulation. My article proposes additional measures to collect plastic from the seas, oceans, and landfills and bury it safely as a resource for future generations. Deep geological disposal is not opposed to all other plastic waste management technologies, but is offered as an additional tool to solve together with other technologies the very serious problems facing humanity in connection with plastic waste. Reviewer comments Furthermore, there is significant potential to treat plastic waste as a resource within a circular economy framework, which could help mitigate the environmental crisis caused by plastic waste without resorting to drastic, impractical measures like deep geological disposal. In my professional view, the future of plastic waste management lies in innovation, sustainable technologies, and responsible consumption, not in burying the problem underground. Author response : Тhe reviewer frames her perspective as a personal professional stance, though it aligns with the widely accepted principles of innovation, sustainable technologies, and responsible consumption in waste management. Regarding the suggestion of burying the problem underground, the article specifically advocates for the storage of plastic waste that cannot be recycled, has already undergone multiple recycling processes, or poses significant risks if incinerated or processed by existing technologies. Unfortunately, the primary concern raised by Dr. Magdalena Vaverková centers on a rather dismissive critique of deep geological disposal, which seems to overshadow other important aspects of the article. Her stance appears to impede an objective review of other proposed ideas, such as mechanisms for collecting plastic waste from oceans, seas, and landfills, as well as the organizational, political, and financial strategies for implementing deep geological disposal. Competing Interests: No competing interests Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 25 Oct 2024 Hayk Minasyan , Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia 25 Oct 2024 Author Response Article Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons Hayk Minasyan Hayk Minasyna’s response to the review of Magdalena Vaverková Author Response to Reviewer Author response : Dear ... Continue reading Article Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons Hayk Minasyan Hayk Minasyna’s response to the review of Magdalena Vaverková Author Response to Reviewer Author response : Dear Magdalena Vaverková, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland Thank you for giving me the opportunity to start a discussion with you regarding your critical comments. I wrote at the end of my article: “This approach to plastic waste management requires future research and discussion regarding the optimization of the concept, its practices, regulations, and policies.” Unfortunately, you did not come up with any specific rational proposal, analysis of the concept, or attempt to optimize the concept or use its elements that, in your opinion, could be useful. However, any radically negative response can be useful in igniting debate and bringing the idea of ​​deep geological disposal of plastic waste to the attention of open-minded researchers. I will try to provide references, where possible, from my article, so that they are easier to find. Reviewer comments As someone who has been engaged in waste management for over 20 years, I found the article’s premise—deep geological disposal of plastic waste—intriguing, yet deeply problematic. Author response : In the last 20 years, the amount of plastic waste has more than doubled (OECD Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060 OECD Publishing (2022) https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/global-plastics-outlook_aa1edf33-en ] It means that a solution to the problem has not yet been found. Reviewer comments While the article proposes this as a new approach to managing the vast quantities of mismanaged plastic waste (MPW), it overlooks several crucial aspects of plastic waste management that have proven to be more practical, efficient, and sustainable. I believe this concept lacks feasibility both from an economic and environmental standpoint. Author response : While belief holds great value in many discussions, it is not typically considered a scientific measure. In order to assess the feasibility of the concept from both economic and environmental perspectives, it would be helpful if the reviewer could present relevant economic calculations, scientific data, and detailed explanations. Reviewer comments One of the most striking issues with the article is the inconsistency in its discussion of plastic’s chemical nature. On one hand, it is acknowledged that plastic can take hundreds to thousands of years to decompose, suggesting that it is inert and resistant to degradation. On the other hand, the article raises concerns about leachates and environmental contamination, which implies that plastic waste does react and break down into harmful substances. Author response : There is no inconsistency: plastic waste can generate leachate, a liquid that forms when water percolates through waste. In deep geological disposal with appropriate technical conditions (isolation, sealing walls for liquids, etc.) plastic waste breakdown is excluded and leachate generation is impossible . Reviewer comments These contradictions undermine the argument for deep geological disposal. Author response : There are no contradictions. In a duly technical approach, nothing undermines the idea of deep geological disposal. Reviewer comments If plastic is inert and non-reactive, the environmental risk should be minimal. However, if plastics release harmful chemicals, placing them in deep geological layers could lead to unforeseen contamination, much like the challenges associated with hazardous waste disposal. . Author response : Disposal of plastic waste in deep and dry repositories is safe and can’t lead to contamination. Reviewer comments The suggestion to treat plastic waste similarly to nuclear waste by storing it in deep geological repositories overlooks the fact that plastic waste is far more abundant, widely dispersed, and less hazardous than nuclear waste. Author response : Yes, plastic waste is less hazardous and more abundant than nuclear waste, but this argument is not something principally against deep geological disposal of plastic waste. Reviewer comments The costs associated with collecting, transporting, and storing plastic in deep geological repositories would be astronomical, and these financial burdens far outweigh any potential benefits. Author response : To make such assertions with confidence, it would also be expected that the reviewer possess a high level of expertise in the field of economics, supported by financial calculations and thorough estimates. Moreover, the reviewer appears to overlook the current limitations of methods like recycling, incineration for energy recovery, and the development of biodegradable alternatives. These approaches, while promising, have yet to demonstrate sufficient effectiveness to curb the rapid accumulation of plastic waste. Reviewer comments Furthermore, nuclear waste is stored this way due to its top-level, long-term radioactive danger. Author response : Yes, nuclear waste is stored this way due to its high-level, long-term radioactive danger, but again, it does not mean that plastic waste may not be stored by deep geological technology. Reviewer comments Plastic waste, while a significant pollutant, can be more effectively managed through other methods, including recycling, incineration for energy recovery, and the development of biodegradable alternatives. Author response : The reviewer ignores the fact that the methods she mentions, including recycling, incineration for energy recovery, and the development of biodegradable alternatives, are not yet effective enough and plastic waste continues to accumulate rapidly. I would like to draw the reviewer's attention to the fact that no more than 10% of plastic waste has been recycled, 11% burned, 8% buried, and the remaining 70% pollutes the environment ( Enfrin et al., 2019 , Zaman and Newman, 2021 ). Reviewer comments Over the years, I have seen substantial progress in both recycling technologies and waste-to-energy systems. Author response : Nevertheless, at present recycling technology processes only 10% of plastic waste; waste-to-energy technology burns 11% of plastic waste. Reviewer comments Many types of plastic waste, particularly PET, can be effectively recycled, and non-recyclable plastics can be incinerated in highly regulated incinerators to produce energy. Author response : While recycling is an important tool, it cannot be viewed as a standalone solution to the plastic waste crisis. The complex nature of the problem requires more than one method of management. By the year 2060, there is a projected trajectory for plastic waste to experience an approximately threefold increase. Within this context, nearly 50 % of the total plastic waste will continue to be deposited in landfills, with a recycling rate of <20 % (OECD Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060 OECD Publishing (2022) https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/global-plastics-outlook_aa1edf33-en ). In addition, recycling plastic is not preferable in most cases because it is technologically complex and expensive, many types of plastic cannot be reused, and finally, it is impossible to recycle the same plastic endlessly. References: Aydin M, Degirmenci T, Bozatli O, Balsalobre-Lorente D. Fresh evidence of the impact of economic complexity, health expenditure, natural resources, plastic consumption, and renewable energy in air pollution deaths in the USA? An empirical approach. Science of The Total Environment [Internet]. 2024 Apr;921:171127. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S004896972401266X ) Dong L, Huang Z, Qin Y, Zhi W. Industrialized fine physical regeneration process and economic benefit assessment for recycling waste HDPE containers. Journal of Cleaner Production [Internet]. 2024 Apr [cited 2024 Sep 10];447:141477. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652624009259 Merrington A. Recycling of plastics. In: Applied Plastics Engineering Handbook [Internet]. Elsevier; 2024 [cited 2024 Sep 10]. p. 191–217. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780323886673000060 Reviewer comments Japan’s approach to waste management, for example, includes advanced waste-to-energy systems that capture a significant amount of the country’s energy from non-recyclable waste while keeping emissions under tight control. By contrast, the article’s deep geological disposal concept ignores the benefits of energy recovery from plastic incineration. Author response : It seems there may have been some misunderstanding or misinterpretation of my article. The reviewer contrasts the ideas presented in the article with current waste management technologies without offering a clear logical basis for such conclusions. This leads to certain assumptions that remain unproven. The idea of deep geological disposal of plastic waste does not ignore other technologies of waste management including plastic incineration. It should be used simultaneously with other technologies. In combination with all modern technologies of plastic waste management, deep geological disposal may help to mitigate the problem of plastic waste. As to plastic incineration, it is dangerous for the environment due to ecological risks: Air Pollution : Incineration releases toxic heavy metals, dioxins, furans, into the air. They poison humans and animals. Dioxins and furans accumulate in the food chain. Greenhouse Gas Emissions : Burning plastic releases carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases, contributing to climate change. Toxic Ash : Incineration generates toxic ash that needs to be disposed of in landfills and can contaminate soil and water. Microplastics : Incineration may produce microplastics that can be released into the atmosphere or water systems, causing further ecological harm. Due to these risks, incineration is not a preferred method for managing plastic waste. References: Luo L, Guo S, Shen D, Shentu J, Lu L, Qi S, et al. Characteristics and release potential of microplastics in municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash. Chemosphere [Internet]. 2024 Sep [cited 2024 Sep 10];364:143163. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0045653524020605 Jin M, Sun M, Liu J, Dong C, Xue J. Influence of operating parameters on the yield of micro-plastics from plastics incineration. Science of The Total Environment [Internet]. 2024 Feb [cited 2024 Sep 10];912:169347. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048969723079779 Rogers K, WaMaina E, Barber A, Masood S, Love C, Kim YH, et al. Emissions from plastic incineration induce inflammation, oxidative stress, and impaired bioenergetics in primary human respiratory epithelial cells. Toxicological Sciences [Internet]. 2024 May 28 [cited 2024 Sep 10];199(2):301–15. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/199/2/301/7636471 Reviewer comments Given the enormous global need for energy and the ongoing development of incineration technologies that meet modern environmental standards, it would make much more sense to focus on optimizing energy recovery from plastic waste than to bury it in geological sites. Author response : The reviewer strongly overestimates plastic incineration. At present, there are no incineration technologies that meet modern environmental standards: References: Jung S, Jung H, Ahn Y. Plastic-to-energy: Process and economic–environmental assessment of a recycling technology. Process Safety and Environmental Protection [Internet]. 2024 Mar [cited 2024 Sep 10];183:1051–8. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0957582024000806 Pathak G, Nichter M, Hardon A, Moyer E. The open burning of plastic wastes is an urgent global health issue. Annals of Global Health [Internet]. 2024 Jan 12 [cited 2024 Sep 10];90(1):3. Available from: https://annalsofglobalhealth.org/articles/10.5334/aogh.4232/ Besides, energy recovery from plastic waste (plastic incineration) results in irreversible loss of plastic. Burying plastic in the ground preserves plastic for future generations of people when the planet's hydrocarbons run out. As for energy production, from the ecological point of view, it must be obtained from renewable sources such as solar energy, wind, hydropower, etc. In this sense, nuclear energy is much more efficient and ecologically safer than burning plastic. References: Pourasl HH, Barenji RV, Khojastehnezhad VM. Solar energy status in the world: A comprehensive review. Energy Reports [Internet]. 2023 Nov [cited 2024 Sep 11];10:3474–93. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352484723014579 Kaldellis JK, Boulogiorgou D. Renewable energy: Wind energy. In: Living with Climate Change [Internet]. Elsevier; 2024 [cited 2024 Sep 11]. p. 513–57. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780443185151000174 Hatamkhani A, Moridi A, Haghighi AT. Incorporating ecosystem services value into the optimal development of hydropower projects. Renewable Energy [Internet]. 2023 Feb [cited 2024 Sep 11];203:495–505. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960148122018754 Krūmiņš J, Kļaviņš M. Investigating the potential of nuclear energy in achieving a carbon-free energy future. Energies [Internet]. 2023 Apr 22 [cited 2024 Sep 11];16(9):3612. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/9/3612 Reviewer comments Additionally, improving recycling infrastructure and reducing single-use plastics are more viable long-term strategies than deep geological disposal. Author response : The reviewer appears to contrast the ideas presented in the article with existing plastic waste management technologies without providing clear justification for these comparisons, which seems to lead to conclusions that may not be fully substantiated. Reviewer comments The article does highlight one concept worth exploring further—treating plastic waste as a valuable commodity. However, rather than applying this idea to deep geological storage, it should be linked to the principles of a circular economy. Author response : Plastic is a valuable commodity and it is true for both deep geological storage and the principles of a circular economy. It is true for all other technologies as well. The reviewer persistently contrasts deep geological disposal versus the principles of a circular economy. Applying the idea of plastic waste's monetary value to deep geological storage does not exclude its application to the principles of a circular economy and other strategies. Reviewer comments In recent years, there has been growing interest in treating waste as a resource, and plastics are no exception. By developing better market mechanisms for plastic waste, particularly through innovations in chemical recycling or even upcycling processes, we could unlock economic opportunities while addressing the environmental challenges posed by plastic pollution. Author response : It sounds like a quote from a public speech. Yes, in recent years there has been growing interest in treating waste as a resource. However, plastic waste continues to accumulate on land, seas, and oceans. Reviewer's Conclusion Reviewer comments While the article raises important concerns about the growing problem of plastic waste, the proposed solution of deep geological disposal is neither economically nor environmentally viable. Author response : Again, for such a categorical conclusion the reviewer should present economic calculations and reasonable explanations as to why deep geological disposal is not environmentally viable. Reviewer comments Decades of experience in waste management have shown that more practical solutions—such as advanced recycling, waste-to-energy, and policy-driven reductions in plastic production—are far more promising. Author response : Maybe the solutions mentioned are promising, but today plastic waste continues accumulating. Again the same statistics: 10% of waste has been recycled, 11% burned, 8% buried, and the remaining 70% pollutes the environment. Declarative statements about promising technologies do not change the catastrophic state of affairs with waste accumulation. My article proposes additional measures to collect plastic from the seas, oceans, and landfills and bury it safely as a resource for future generations. Deep geological disposal is not opposed to all other plastic waste management technologies, but is offered as an additional tool to solve together with other technologies the very serious problems facing humanity in connection with plastic waste. Reviewer comments Furthermore, there is significant potential to treat plastic waste as a resource within a circular economy framework, which could help mitigate the environmental crisis caused by plastic waste without resorting to drastic, impractical measures like deep geological disposal. In my professional view, the future of plastic waste management lies in innovation, sustainable technologies, and responsible consumption, not in burying the problem underground. Author response : Тhe reviewer frames her perspective as a personal professional stance, though it aligns with the widely accepted principles of innovation, sustainable technologies, and responsible consumption in waste management. Regarding the suggestion of burying the problem underground, the article specifically advocates for the storage of plastic waste that cannot be recycled, has already undergone multiple recycling processes, or poses significant risks if incinerated or processed by existing technologies. Unfortunately, the primary concern raised by Dr. Magdalena Vaverková centers on a rather dismissive critique of deep geological disposal, which seems to overshadow other important aspects of the article. Her stance appears to impede an objective review of other proposed ideas, such as mechanisms for collecting plastic waste from oceans, seas, and landfills, as well as the organizational, political, and financial strategies for implementing deep geological disposal. Article Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons Hayk Minasyan Hayk Minasyna’s response to the review of Magdalena Vaverková Author Response to Reviewer Author response : Dear Magdalena Vaverková, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland Thank you for giving me the opportunity to start a discussion with you regarding your critical comments. I wrote at the end of my article: “This approach to plastic waste management requires future research and discussion regarding the optimization of the concept, its practices, regulations, and policies.” Unfortunately, you did not come up with any specific rational proposal, analysis of the concept, or attempt to optimize the concept or use its elements that, in your opinion, could be useful. However, any radically negative response can be useful in igniting debate and bringing the idea of ​​deep geological disposal of plastic waste to the attention of open-minded researchers. I will try to provide references, where possible, from my article, so that they are easier to find. Reviewer comments As someone who has been engaged in waste management for over 20 years, I found the article’s premise—deep geological disposal of plastic waste—intriguing, yet deeply problematic. Author response : In the last 20 years, the amount of plastic waste has more than doubled (OECD Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060 OECD Publishing (2022) https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/global-plastics-outlook_aa1edf33-en ] It means that a solution to the problem has not yet been found. Reviewer comments While the article proposes this as a new approach to managing the vast quantities of mismanaged plastic waste (MPW), it overlooks several crucial aspects of plastic waste management that have proven to be more practical, efficient, and sustainable. I believe this concept lacks feasibility both from an economic and environmental standpoint. Author response : While belief holds great value in many discussions, it is not typically considered a scientific measure. In order to assess the feasibility of the concept from both economic and environmental perspectives, it would be helpful if the reviewer could present relevant economic calculations, scientific data, and detailed explanations. Reviewer comments One of the most striking issues with the article is the inconsistency in its discussion of plastic’s chemical nature. On one hand, it is acknowledged that plastic can take hundreds to thousands of years to decompose, suggesting that it is inert and resistant to degradation. On the other hand, the article raises concerns about leachates and environmental contamination, which implies that plastic waste does react and break down into harmful substances. Author response : There is no inconsistency: plastic waste can generate leachate, a liquid that forms when water percolates through waste. In deep geological disposal with appropriate technical conditions (isolation, sealing walls for liquids, etc.) plastic waste breakdown is excluded and leachate generation is impossible . Reviewer comments These contradictions undermine the argument for deep geological disposal. Author response : There are no contradictions. In a duly technical approach, nothing undermines the idea of deep geological disposal. Reviewer comments If plastic is inert and non-reactive, the environmental risk should be minimal. However, if plastics release harmful chemicals, placing them in deep geological layers could lead to unforeseen contamination, much like the challenges associated with hazardous waste disposal. . Author response : Disposal of plastic waste in deep and dry repositories is safe and can’t lead to contamination. Reviewer comments The suggestion to treat plastic waste similarly to nuclear waste by storing it in deep geological repositories overlooks the fact that plastic waste is far more abundant, widely dispersed, and less hazardous than nuclear waste. Author response : Yes, plastic waste is less hazardous and more abundant than nuclear waste, but this argument is not something principally against deep geological disposal of plastic waste. Reviewer comments The costs associated with collecting, transporting, and storing plastic in deep geological repositories would be astronomical, and these financial burdens far outweigh any potential benefits. Author response : To make such assertions with confidence, it would also be expected that the reviewer possess a high level of expertise in the field of economics, supported by financial calculations and thorough estimates. Moreover, the reviewer appears to overlook the current limitations of methods like recycling, incineration for energy recovery, and the development of biodegradable alternatives. These approaches, while promising, have yet to demonstrate sufficient effectiveness to curb the rapid accumulation of plastic waste. Reviewer comments Furthermore, nuclear waste is stored this way due to its top-level, long-term radioactive danger. Author response : Yes, nuclear waste is stored this way due to its high-level, long-term radioactive danger, but again, it does not mean that plastic waste may not be stored by deep geological technology. Reviewer comments Plastic waste, while a significant pollutant, can be more effectively managed through other methods, including recycling, incineration for energy recovery, and the development of biodegradable alternatives. Author response : The reviewer ignores the fact that the methods she mentions, including recycling, incineration for energy recovery, and the development of biodegradable alternatives, are not yet effective enough and plastic waste continues to accumulate rapidly. I would like to draw the reviewer's attention to the fact that no more than 10% of plastic waste has been recycled, 11% burned, 8% buried, and the remaining 70% pollutes the environment ( Enfrin et al., 2019 , Zaman and Newman, 2021 ). Reviewer comments Over the years, I have seen substantial progress in both recycling technologies and waste-to-energy systems. Author response : Nevertheless, at present recycling technology processes only 10% of plastic waste; waste-to-energy technology burns 11% of plastic waste. Reviewer comments Many types of plastic waste, particularly PET, can be effectively recycled, and non-recyclable plastics can be incinerated in highly regulated incinerators to produce energy. Author response : While recycling is an important tool, it cannot be viewed as a standalone solution to the plastic waste crisis. The complex nature of the problem requires more than one method of management. By the year 2060, there is a projected trajectory for plastic waste to experience an approximately threefold increase. Within this context, nearly 50 % of the total plastic waste will continue to be deposited in landfills, with a recycling rate of <20 % (OECD Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060 OECD Publishing (2022) https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/global-plastics-outlook_aa1edf33-en ). In addition, recycling plastic is not preferable in most cases because it is technologically complex and expensive, many types of plastic cannot be reused, and finally, it is impossible to recycle the same plastic endlessly. References: Aydin M, Degirmenci T, Bozatli O, Balsalobre-Lorente D. Fresh evidence of the impact of economic complexity, health expenditure, natural resources, plastic consumption, and renewable energy in air pollution deaths in the USA? An empirical approach. Science of The Total Environment [Internet]. 2024 Apr;921:171127. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S004896972401266X ) Dong L, Huang Z, Qin Y, Zhi W. Industrialized fine physical regeneration process and economic benefit assessment for recycling waste HDPE containers. Journal of Cleaner Production [Internet]. 2024 Apr [cited 2024 Sep 10];447:141477. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652624009259 Merrington A. Recycling of plastics. In: Applied Plastics Engineering Handbook [Internet]. Elsevier; 2024 [cited 2024 Sep 10]. p. 191–217. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780323886673000060 Reviewer comments Japan’s approach to waste management, for example, includes advanced waste-to-energy systems that capture a significant amount of the country’s energy from non-recyclable waste while keeping emissions under tight control. By contrast, the article’s deep geological disposal concept ignores the benefits of energy recovery from plastic incineration. Author response : It seems there may have been some misunderstanding or misinterpretation of my article. The reviewer contrasts the ideas presented in the article with current waste management technologies without offering a clear logical basis for such conclusions. This leads to certain assumptions that remain unproven. The idea of deep geological disposal of plastic waste does not ignore other technologies of waste management including plastic incineration. It should be used simultaneously with other technologies. In combination with all modern technologies of plastic waste management, deep geological disposal may help to mitigate the problem of plastic waste. As to plastic incineration, it is dangerous for the environment due to ecological risks: Air Pollution : Incineration releases toxic heavy metals, dioxins, furans, into the air. They poison humans and animals. Dioxins and furans accumulate in the food chain. Greenhouse Gas Emissions : Burning plastic releases carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases, contributing to climate change. Toxic Ash : Incineration generates toxic ash that needs to be disposed of in landfills and can contaminate soil and water. Microplastics : Incineration may produce microplastics that can be released into the atmosphere or water systems, causing further ecological harm. Due to these risks, incineration is not a preferred method for managing plastic waste. References: Luo L, Guo S, Shen D, Shentu J, Lu L, Qi S, et al. Characteristics and release potential of microplastics in municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash. Chemosphere [Internet]. 2024 Sep [cited 2024 Sep 10];364:143163. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0045653524020605 Jin M, Sun M, Liu J, Dong C, Xue J. Influence of operating parameters on the yield of micro-plastics from plastics incineration. Science of The Total Environment [Internet]. 2024 Feb [cited 2024 Sep 10];912:169347. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048969723079779 Rogers K, WaMaina E, Barber A, Masood S, Love C, Kim YH, et al. Emissions from plastic incineration induce inflammation, oxidative stress, and impaired bioenergetics in primary human respiratory epithelial cells. Toxicological Sciences [Internet]. 2024 May 28 [cited 2024 Sep 10];199(2):301–15. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/199/2/301/7636471 Reviewer comments Given the enormous global need for energy and the ongoing development of incineration technologies that meet modern environmental standards, it would make much more sense to focus on optimizing energy recovery from plastic waste than to bury it in geological sites. Author response : The reviewer strongly overestimates plastic incineration. At present, there are no incineration technologies that meet modern environmental standards: References: Jung S, Jung H, Ahn Y. Plastic-to-energy: Process and economic–environmental assessment of a recycling technology. Process Safety and Environmental Protection [Internet]. 2024 Mar [cited 2024 Sep 10];183:1051–8. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0957582024000806 Pathak G, Nichter M, Hardon A, Moyer E. The open burning of plastic wastes is an urgent global health issue. Annals of Global Health [Internet]. 2024 Jan 12 [cited 2024 Sep 10];90(1):3. Available from: https://annalsofglobalhealth.org/articles/10.5334/aogh.4232/ Besides, energy recovery from plastic waste (plastic incineration) results in irreversible loss of plastic. Burying plastic in the ground preserves plastic for future generations of people when the planet's hydrocarbons run out. As for energy production, from the ecological point of view, it must be obtained from renewable sources such as solar energy, wind, hydropower, etc. In this sense, nuclear energy is much more efficient and ecologically safer than burning plastic. References: Pourasl HH, Barenji RV, Khojastehnezhad VM. Solar energy status in the world: A comprehensive review. Energy Reports [Internet]. 2023 Nov [cited 2024 Sep 11];10:3474–93. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352484723014579 Kaldellis JK, Boulogiorgou D. Renewable energy: Wind energy. In: Living with Climate Change [Internet]. Elsevier; 2024 [cited 2024 Sep 11]. p. 513–57. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780443185151000174 Hatamkhani A, Moridi A, Haghighi AT. Incorporating ecosystem services value into the optimal development of hydropower projects. Renewable Energy [Internet]. 2023 Feb [cited 2024 Sep 11];203:495–505. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960148122018754 Krūmiņš J, Kļaviņš M. Investigating the potential of nuclear energy in achieving a carbon-free energy future. Energies [Internet]. 2023 Apr 22 [cited 2024 Sep 11];16(9):3612. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/9/3612 Reviewer comments Additionally, improving recycling infrastructure and reducing single-use plastics are more viable long-term strategies than deep geological disposal. Author response : The reviewer appears to contrast the ideas presented in the article with existing plastic waste management technologies without providing clear justification for these comparisons, which seems to lead to conclusions that may not be fully substantiated. Reviewer comments The article does highlight one concept worth exploring further—treating plastic waste as a valuable commodity. However, rather than applying this idea to deep geological storage, it should be linked to the principles of a circular economy. Author response : Plastic is a valuable commodity and it is true for both deep geological storage and the principles of a circular economy. It is true for all other technologies as well. The reviewer persistently contrasts deep geological disposal versus the principles of a circular economy. Applying the idea of plastic waste's monetary value to deep geological storage does not exclude its application to the principles of a circular economy and other strategies. Reviewer comments In recent years, there has been growing interest in treating waste as a resource, and plastics are no exception. By developing better market mechanisms for plastic waste, particularly through innovations in chemical recycling or even upcycling processes, we could unlock economic opportunities while addressing the environmental challenges posed by plastic pollution. Author response : It sounds like a quote from a public speech. Yes, in recent years there has been growing interest in treating waste as a resource. However, plastic waste continues to accumulate on land, seas, and oceans. Reviewer's Conclusion Reviewer comments While the article raises important concerns about the growing problem of plastic waste, the proposed solution of deep geological disposal is neither economically nor environmentally viable. Author response : Again, for such a categorical conclusion the reviewer should present economic calculations and reasonable explanations as to why deep geological disposal is not environmentally viable. Reviewer comments Decades of experience in waste management have shown that more practical solutions—such as advanced recycling, waste-to-energy, and policy-driven reductions in plastic production—are far more promising. Author response : Maybe the solutions mentioned are promising, but today plastic waste continues accumulating. Again the same statistics: 10% of waste has been recycled, 11% burned, 8% buried, and the remaining 70% pollutes the environment. Declarative statements about promising technologies do not change the catastrophic state of affairs with waste accumulation. My article proposes additional measures to collect plastic from the seas, oceans, and landfills and bury it safely as a resource for future generations. Deep geological disposal is not opposed to all other plastic waste management technologies, but is offered as an additional tool to solve together with other technologies the very serious problems facing humanity in connection with plastic waste. Reviewer comments Furthermore, there is significant potential to treat plastic waste as a resource within a circular economy framework, which could help mitigate the environmental crisis caused by plastic waste without resorting to drastic, impractical measures like deep geological disposal. In my professional view, the future of plastic waste management lies in innovation, sustainable technologies, and responsible consumption, not in burying the problem underground. Author response : Тhe reviewer frames her perspective as a personal professional stance, though it aligns with the widely accepted principles of innovation, sustainable technologies, and responsible consumption in waste management. Regarding the suggestion of burying the problem underground, the article specifically advocates for the storage of plastic waste that cannot be recycled, has already undergone multiple recycling processes, or poses significant risks if incinerated or processed by existing technologies. Unfortunately, the primary concern raised by Dr. Magdalena Vaverková centers on a rather dismissive critique of deep geological disposal, which seems to overshadow other important aspects of the article. Her stance appears to impede an objective review of other proposed ideas, such as mechanisms for collecting plastic waste from oceans, seas, and landfills, as well as the organizational, political, and financial strategies for implementing deep geological disposal. Competing Interests: No competing interests Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 17 May 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 Version 3 (revision) 14 Jan 26 read Version 2 (revision) 17 Jul 25 read read read Version 1 17 May 24 read read Magdalena Vaverková , Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland Win Cowger , The Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research, Long Beach, USA Dr. Melanie Bergmann , Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany Atik Fayshal , North Dakota State University (NDSU), Fargo, USA Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Fayshal A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 02 Feb 2026 | for Version 3 Atik Fayshal , North Dakota State University (NDSU), Fargo, North Dakota, USA 0 Views copyright © 2026 Fayshal A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Accept without any further revision Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise GIS, Hydrothermal Liquefaction, Environmental Photochemistry, Pesticides, Organic Micropollutants, Plastic Waste I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 05 Feb 2026 Hayk Minasyan, Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia Dear Dr. Atik Fayshal, I am profoundly grateful to you for reviewing my article. Best Regards Hayk Minasyan View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Fayshal A. Peer Review Report For: Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194890.r450146) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v3#referee-response-450146 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Fayshal A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 02 Jan 2026 | for Version 2 Atik Fayshal , North Dakota State University (NDSU), Fargo, North Dakota, USA 0 Views copyright © 2026 Fayshal A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Lack of Economic Feasibility : The manuscript does not provide a detailed economic analysis of deep geological disposal (DGD), including the costs of transporting, storing, and maintaining plastic waste in geological sites. A more thorough cost-benefit analysis is essential to evaluate the viability of this solution. Environmental Risk Assessment : While the paper claims DGD is safe, it does not address potential long-term environmental risks, such as groundwater seepage or geological changes that could compromise the waste storage. A robust risk assessment and detailed mitigation strategies are needed. Inconsistent Degradation of Plastics : The manuscript presents plastic waste as both inert (resistant to degradation) and a potential source of harmful leachates. This inconsistency should be clarified. If plastics are inert, leachate formation shouldn't be a concern; if not, the types of degradation products (e.g., microplastics) should be discussed. Overlooking the Scale of Plastic Waste : While the manuscript compares plastic waste to nuclear waste, it fails to address the vastly larger volume and less hazardous nature of plastic. The logistics of managing such a large volume in deep geological sites are not fully explored, and the feasibility of this approach should be reassessed in the context of the scale of the problem. Comparison with Other Waste Management Methods : The manuscript mentions DGD as a solution but does not sufficiently compare it to other methods like recycling, incineration, or energy recovery. These alternatives, particularly waste-to-energy systems, could be more cost-effective and environmentally sustainable, and DGD should be presented as a complementary strategy. Funding and Commercial Viability : The paper lacks a clear funding strategy for DGD. How will the infrastructure for DGD be financed? There is no discussion of whether this solution would rely on public or private funding or the economic incentives for businesses to invest in such an infrastructure. Regulatory and Policy Considerations : The manuscript does not discuss the regulatory frameworks required for implementing DGD globally. How will governments, international bodies, and environmental agencies regulate and oversee the implementation of DGD? A policy discussion would add depth to the feasibility of the proposed solution. Clarification of Plastic as a Resource : The idea of treating plastic waste as a resource is promising, but the manuscript should explore how this can be realized. How will plastic waste be extracted and reused from geological storage in the future? Further explanation is needed on the potential future technologies that could make this process feasible. Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature? Partly Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? Partly Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature? Yes Are the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise GIS, Hydrothermal Liquefaction, Environmental Photochemistry, Pesticides, Organic Micropollutants, Plastic Waste I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 14 Jan 2026 Hayk Minasyan, Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia Response to Reviewer We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments. We appreciate the opportunity to improve the clarity, depth, and balance of the article. Below we address each point in detail. Where appropriate, corresponding clarifications and extensions have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. 1. Lack of Economic Feasibility Reviewer comment: The manuscript does not provide a detailed economic analysis of deep geological disposal (DGD), including the costs of transporting, storing, and maintaining plastic waste in geological sites. A more thorough cost-benefit analysis is essential to evaluate the viability of this solution. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We fully agree that the long-term viability of any waste-management strategy requires a structured economic analysis. In the present work, our intention was primarily to introduce and conceptually frame deep geological disposal (DGD) for plastic waste, rather than to present it as a fully developed operational program. For this reason, we initially limited ourselves to general economic considerations. In the revised manuscript, we clarify the conceptual nature of the proposal and describe the key economic parameters that should be evaluated in future feasibility studies, including transport, storage infrastructure, monitoring, maintenance costs, and the avoided externalities associated with environmental leakage of mismanaged plastic waste. We also emphasize that DGD is intended particularly for plastic fractions that are currently non-recyclable and environmentally persistent. 2. Environmental Risk Assessment Reviewer comment: While the paper claims DGD is safe, it does not address potential long-term environmental risks… Response: We are grateful for this observation. We agree that any long-term storage concept must account for geological stability, groundwater interaction, and low-probability but high-impact scenarios. In the revised manuscript, we expand the discussion of environmental risk. We clarify that the DGD concept is based on using stable geological formations comparable to those considered internationally for hazardous or radioactive waste repositories. We also describe generic mitigation principles such as multi-barrier containment, hydrogeological isolation, site-selection criteria, and monitoring. At the same time, we explicitly acknowledge that a full probabilistic risk assessment requires dedicated interdisciplinary study beyond the scope of this conceptual article. 3. Inconsistent Degradation of Plastics Reviewer comment: The manuscript presents plastic waste as both inert and a potential source of leachates… Response: We appreciate this insightful clarification request. The seeming inconsistency arises from the fact that plastics are generally resistant to biodegradation but may undergo fragmentation or leaching under certain environmental conditions, particularly in landfills where temperature, moisture, and chemical exposure vary. We have revised the text to state more clearly that leachate formation and fragmentation concern conventional landfill environments , whereas DGD is designed to isolate plastics in dry, sealed, and geologically stable formations where such degradation processes are expected to be minimized. Thus, one of the main advantages of DGD is precisely the reduction of environmental exposure that promotes degradation and dispersion. 4. Overlooking the Scale of Plastic Waste Reviewer comment: The manuscript does not fully address the scale of plastic waste compared with nuclear waste… Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this central point. Our comparison with nuclear waste was not intended to imply equivalence of risk, but rather to illustrate how geological isolation concepts may be transferred and adapted. In the revised manuscript, we more clearly emphasize the difference in scale and hazard profile . We also clarify that DGD is not proposed as a universal solution for all plastic waste , but as a targeted approach for non-recyclable and mismanaged fractions . We expand the discussion on logistical feasibility at regional or national levels rather than on a single global repository model. 5. Comparison with Other Waste-Management Methods Reviewer comment: The manuscript should better compare DGD with recycling, incineration, and energy recovery… Response: We fully agree, and we appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. In the revised version, we expand the discussion to present DGD explicitly as a complementary component of an integrated waste-management system . We note that recycling, chemical recycling, incineration, and waste-to-energy technologies remain essential, and DGD is proposed specifically for streams that remain outside these systems due to technical or economic barriers. 6. Funding and Commercial Viability Reviewer comment: The paper lacks a clear funding strategy… Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this important issue. As the paper is primarily conceptual, we did not originally propose specific financial frameworks. However, we fully agree that economic governance will be critical. We have now added a section discussing potential funding pathways , including extended producer responsibility schemes, public–private partnerships, environmental funds, and incentives linked to assigning economic value to currently mismanaged plastic waste. We also stress that financing models would require coordination between governments, industry, and international organizations. 7. Regulatory and Policy Considerations Reviewer comment: The manuscript does not discuss the regulatory frameworks required for DGD… Response: We appreciate this observation. Implementation of DGD would indeed require robust regulatory oversight. In the revised manuscript, we discuss the need for: • national and international regulatory alignment • repository licensing and monitoring obligations • environmental impact assessment requirements • public-engagement mechanisms We also note that existing frameworks for hazardous-waste or nuclear-waste management provide precedents that may guide the evolution of DGD governance. 8. Clarification of Plastic as a Resource Reviewer comment: Further explanation is needed regarding future reuse of stored plastic… Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this conceptual pillar. We now expand the manuscript to describe how future chemical recycling, depolymerization, or hydrocarbon-recovery technologies may enable retrieval and reuse of stored plastic waste. We clarify that DGD is conceptualized not as irreversible burial , but as secure long-term storage that preserves the material’s future value while eliminating environmental leakage today. Closing Statement We are sincerely grateful to the reviewer for the depth and constructiveness of the comments. We believe that the revisions made in response have strengthened the manuscript significantly by improving conceptual clarity, balance, and feasibility framing. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests reply Respond Report a concern Fayshal A. Peer Review Report For: Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.184634.r437500) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v2#referee-response-437500 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Bergmann D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 02 Jan 2026 | for Version 2 Dr. Melanie Bergmann , Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany 0 Views copyright © 2026 Bergmann D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Review of Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons The opinion article by Hayk Minasyan deals with the long-term disposal of plastic waste and proposes disposal in the deep geosphere as a possible complimentary solution to plastic waste management. As this is an opinion piece, I should state that I disagree with the suggested concept, because, it is not in line with the waste hierarchy. Secondly, I very much doubt that this approach is feasible economically speaking and in terms of available capacity, or unproblematic for the environment in the long term. I don't mean to be polemical, but this idea is a little akin to proposing to shoot our plastic waste into space. I am sorry but I recommend rejection on the following more specific grounds: No data is provided to show that this is a good idea. -Scalability: According to the OECD , plastic waste is due to triple by 2060 if business-as-usual growth rates of plastic production will continue on the current trajectory. This would cause 1014.144 million t of plastic waste in 2060 alone. No data are provided on the potential global storage capacity of DGD and how this relates to the projected mass of plastic waste. I suspect it could only accommodate a small fraction ever of the waste produced. -Implementation: Before deep storage, plastic waste would need to be collected. However, waste collection is currently poorly developed in many low-GDP countries. Development of new schemes would incur high cost, as would transport to these. It is unclear how new or improved waste collection infrastructures could be financed. In light of this, it seems unlikely that DGS could play a significant role. -Potential effects of hazards on geosphere integrity: Deep geological storage could be affected by the effects of climate change or other unforeseen changes in the geosphere (s. below example of Asse II mine for nuclear waste). Climate change does not only affect the geosphere of permafrost but also seismic activities increasing the frequency of earthquakes. This is a result of changes in hydrostatic pressure in the underground due to global sea level rise and more frequent strong storms, a recent study has shown. It could lead “to changes in seismic cycles – with an increasing risk of earthquakes and cascading effects such as landslides, tsunamis and liquefaction, particularly in the world's coastal regions.” Surely, such risks have to be analysed and considered in an era of climate change. Hazard assessments are needed and might show that only few areas exist that are sufficiently stable and thus amenable to deep geological storage. This aspect is not mentioned at all in the Opinion Piece. In addition, I would argue that those areas with greater resilience should be prioritised for the disposal of nuclear waste, given that it is much more hazardous than plastic waste, particularly during the acute phase. This leads me to another weak point in the argument: the comparison between the two types of waste. The text suggests that deep geological disposal is justified because plastic is persistent and toxic too. While this is true to a certain extent, nuclear waste is far more hazardous, making this comparison questionable. Furthermore, I do not consider the amount of text devoted to radioactive waste and its development to be relevant in an article about plastic waste. -Competition with other uses: Deep geological storage is considered for various purposes, including- as stated by the authors- nuclear waste as well as carbon that has been captured from the atmosphere to reduce CO2. Competition between these uses and limited storage capacity raises again the question of scalability. More specific points: Abstract: “ Approximately 80% of ocean plastic litter comes from land. ” This is a myth there is no clear source of this statement that is being re-iterated. By contrast, many studies find other percentages. Either omit this sentence or write that there is uncertainty attached to this estimate. Introduction -“ More than 10 million tons of plastics enter the oceans annually (Carney Almroth and Eggert, 2019, Chassignet et al., 2021).” This is outdated and the citation is not a data source (should be Jambeck et al. 2015). Borrelle et al. (2020) report that 19-23 million t/year enter the aquatic environment. Cottom et al. (2024) estimate plastic waste emissions at 52.1 [48.3–56.3] million metric tonnes (Mt) per year (all environments). -“ A 2025 study (based on 2022 data) found that 27.9% was recycled, 34% was incinerated, 40% went to landfills, and 11% was mismanaged (i.e. littered or dumped into the environment) (Houssini et al., 2025) .” Houssini et al. referred to recycling rates of 9% : “ The global recycling rate remain stagnant showing little progress from previous estimates 1 , accounting of 9% of primary production .” Please, correct or refer to the OECD report, which many people cite: “After taking into account losses during recycling, only 9% of plastic waste was ultimately recycled, while 19% was incinerated and almost 50% went to sanitary landfills. The remaining 22% was disposed of in uncontrolled dumpsites, burned in open pits or leaked into the environment.” file:///C:/Users/bergmann/Downloads/de747aef-en.pdf) -Maybe you want to add in the first paragraph that numbers will be much bigger if nanoplastics are added based on this study: (Refer to ref no.1) -“ Currently, global annual plastic production is approximately 348 million tons (Yu et al., 2022) .” This is outdated. OECD reports 460 million t already in 2019, which was 6 years ago, during which additional plastic has been produced at increasing growth rates. Some say, if plastic fibers are included, it should be ~500 million t in 2021. -“ The accumulation of mismanaged plastic waste (MPW) in the environment is a global concern ( Lebreton and Andrady, 2019 ). Therefore, along with the already practiced approaches (recycling, incineration, landfill, etc.), new approaches to plastic waste management are necessary.“ This list of measures does not include reducing plastic production, even though this is one of the most effective ways to reduce plastic waste and plastic pollution (e.g. Lau et al. 2020; and hence the waste hierarchy), especially since it has recently been shown that plastic production and plastic pollution are linked (Cowger et al. 2024). -“ As landfills are relatively closely sealed reactors with complex biochemical reactions and physical changes, plastic waste buried in landfills is subjected to more severe environmental conditions such as leachate, high salinity, fluctuating temperature, gas generation, physical stress, and microbial degradation .” Please add storms and extreme weather events as well as natural disasters to this list. -P3: “ The amount of plastic waste continues to increase progressively, and this waste is increasing the land and water surfaces (Singh et al., 2023) .” Add ‘on’ -“This waste, currently unsuitable for recycling, may tomorrow become a raw material for future technologies.” Please, elaborate, what might be these future uses? I am not aware of any such development and am skeptical as ‘plastics’ comprise so many different polymer types and at least 16,000 chemicals, so the potential combination of substances is huge, making any use unlikely. Just pointing to some potential future use is not sufficient in a scientific perspective, it is a bit like a unicorn, wishful thinking. This is important, because if there will be no such solution available, it is just another form of storage, and storage capacity is limited (especially given the expected growth of waste). -“ This article outlines the rationale, feasibility and implications of this unconventional but potentially transformative strategy. ” I would argue that this article does not outline the feasibility of Deep Geological Disposal as no data are provided on the storage capacity in relation to waste generation. Method / Results -Method & Results seem appropriate for the limited scope intended. It only shows that this concept has not already been proposed elsewhere. Unfortunately, however, it would have been more important to provide data on the storage capacity in relation to waste generation to be able to assess the feasibility of the concept as stated above. Since this is lacking, I consider the methods/results insufficient. Discussion -P.4: srontium-90 should be strontium-90 -Even if decay times of plastic and nuclear waste are similar (we don’t actually know these for many plastics), I find the analogy made and thus the framing misleading, given that nuclear waste is so much more hazardous. -“ One of the reasons why people pollute the environment so irresponsibly with plastic waste is that this waste has no monetary value. If it had any value, perhaps people would pollute less, and many would collect plastic waste and get paid for it .“ This sentence implies that plastic pollution is primarily driven by ‘irresponsible’ consumer behaviour. While this might be true in some cases, it has been shown that plastic pollution is linked with oversupply, i.e. increasing plastic production (Cowger et al.). This increase meets insufficient waste management capacity, so it is a structural problem, nothing that consumers can solve. -“1. There are a large number of exhausted, abandoned, and unused mines, quarries, caverns, and holes in the world ( Bennett, 2016 , Cui, 2020 , Kushwaha et al., 2019 , Liu, 2021 ).” This is insufficient as a proof of concept for DGD. Numbers plus capacity of such infrastructures mapped against plastic waste produced would be a starting point. -“ 4.The placement of plastic waste in such locations is safe and has no environmental consequences. Plastic waste can release harmful chemicals over time in landfills, contaminating the soil, groundwater, and surrounding ecosystems whereas placement of plastic waste in isolated and encapsulated conditions prevents plastic degradation.” See argument above re potential geo- hazards in a changing climate. In addition, there is precedence for instability of former mines, e.g. the German salt mine Asse II, which is used to store radioactive waste ( https://www.bge.de/en/asse/ ). This raises the important question how isolated & safe such infrastructures really are in the long run (potentially even more so in a changing climate). At ASSE II, it is not even well-known what/how much was stored in the 1970’s. How can we ensure that future generations will have such knowledge, when we were unable to do so in the past in a ‘well-developed’ country such as Germany. There are likely more such examples elsewhere. -“ The deposition of waste should be carried out in accordance with the rules of conservation, with the possibility of extracting plastic waste in the event of depletion of hydrocarbon reserves on the planet ( Pang et al., 2022 , Petrescu, 2020 ). ” Once hydrocarbons will have been depleted, we will no longer be permitted to emit CO2 (even from incinerating DGD plastic waste), and hopefully long before that, in order to protect our climate and livelihoods. Has the author not heard of the climate protection agreement? -Should the paper still be accepted, I recommend review by geologists with a deep knowledge of the deep geosphere and its stability. Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature? Partly Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? Yes Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature? No Are the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments? No References 1. ten Hietbrink S, Materić D, Holzinger R, Groeskamp S, et al.: Nanoplastic concentrations across the North Atlantic. Nature . 2025; 643 (8071): 412-416 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Plastic pollution I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 14 Jan 2026 Hayk Minasyan, Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia Response to Reviewer: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the careful, detailed and critical evaluation of our Opinion Article and for the opportunity to clarify several points. We acknowledge that the topic of deep geological disposal (DGD) of plastic waste is unconventional and controversial. Precisely for this reason, we consider it important that it is openly discussed in the scientific literature. Below, we address the Reviewer's main concerns point-by-point. General position of the Reviewer: The Reviewer states that they disagree with the concept because it is not aligned with the waste hierarchy, and that they doubt feasibility, scalability and long-term environmental safety. We fully respect this position. However, our article does not propose DGD as a replacement for the waste hierarchy , but as a complementary, last-resort strategy for those fractions of plastic waste that: cannot currently be recycled, are being persistently mismanaged, and contribute to long-term environmental loading. This is clarified in several parts of the manuscript. The intention of the Opinion Article is to explore whether DGD deserves consideration alongside existing measures rather than to claim that it should become a dominant or primary strategy. 1. “No data are provided to support that this is a good idea” / “Scalability and capacity are unclear” We agree with the Reviewer that quantitative modelling of global storage potential versus projected plastic waste generation would be highly desirable. However, such work requires interdisciplinary collaboration between geologists, mining engineers, waste scientists and economists — and currently no such models exist in the literature . The aim of the Opinion Article is to open this line of inquiry , not to prematurely close it. We explicitly acknowledge that feasibility depends on: geological availability, storage integrity, cost and infrastructure, interaction with other societal priorities. Therefore, the absence of full capacity models should be viewed not as a weakness of logic, but as an indication of an emerging research direction that requires development . We also emphasise that DGD is not proposed for 100% of global plastic waste , but potentially for a limited fraction of persistent and unrecyclable waste . Thus, its scalability must be evaluated in that narrower context. 2. “Implementation challenges in low-income countries make DGD unrealistic” We agree that insufficient waste collection remains a critical bottleneck globally. However, any advanced waste management strategy — including recycling and controlled incineration — depends on improving collection systems. Therefore, improving waste collection is not an argument against DGD specifically, but a shared prerequisite across all management approaches . Our intention is not to provide a financial blueprint, but to state that if unrecyclable plastic must be isolated for centuries to millennia, deep stable formations may be one of few environments capable of achieving this . 3. “Geological instability and climate-related hazards may compromise DGD safety” This is an important and valid consideration. We agree that: long-term hazard assessment, site-specific geological stability studies, and climate-sensitivity analyses are indispensable for any future exploration of DGD. However, it should be noted that geological disposal is already being developed internationally for high-level radioactive waste , which requires far more stringent containment than plastics. This demonstrates that stable deep formations do exist and can be evaluated rigorously . We do not claim that all geological settings are suitable. Rather, we argue that some subset of formations may meet the necessary stability criteria — and that this deserves assessment. 4. “Comparison with nuclear waste is misleading” We agree that radioactive waste is vastly more hazardous. Our comparison does not imply equivalence of risk . The analogy is limited to timescale : both classes of material persist on century-to-millennium scales, both create cumulative environmental burden. Thus, the analogy is conceptual, not risk-equivalence-based. We have clarified this in the revised text. 5. “Competition for underground space (e.g., nuclear waste, CO ₂ storage)” This is again a valid point — and another reason why quantitative assessments are needed . However, current planning for geological repositories is not expected to occupy all suitable formations globally. The Earth’s crust is vast, and different formations may be suited for different materials. We do not argue that DGD must proceed — only that it should be considered among strategic options for long-term isolation of persistent wastes . 6. “Alleged ‘myth’ regarding land-based contribution to marine plastic pollution” We acknowledge the Reviewer’s concern. We have revised the text to: reflect uncertainty ranges, avoid implying precision where none exists, and cite recent estimates alongside earlier work. We agree that estimates differ and this is now clearly stated. 7. “Recycling figures quoted incorrectly / outdated production data” We thank the Reviewer for drawing attention to this. We have revised the manuscript to: ensure consistency with OECD and other authoritative sources, update global production estimates, correct the quoted recycling percentages. We are grateful for this correction. 8. “Future reuse of deposited plastic is speculative” We accept this point. We have clarified that potential future retrieval is hypothetical , and that the primary argument for DGD remains long-term isolation , not resource banking. 9. “Plastic pollution is linked to overproduction, not only consumer behaviour” We fully agree. The revised text reflects that: structural production dynamics, insufficient waste management capacity, and global inequalities are key drivers of environmental leakage. 10. “Insufficient demonstration of feasibility in the Methods/Results” We agree that the article does not supply engineering feasibility evidence — because it is not intended as an engineering design study. Instead, it is a conceptual Opinion Article arguing that DGD deserves structured scientific evaluation rather than being dismissed a priori . We are grateful to the Reviewer for their thoughtful engagement with our work. The primary purpose of this Opinion Article was not to present a finalized engineering solution, but rather to place a new idea into the scientific domain and initiate discussion — even if only among a limited readership. We also believe that the Review process itself illustrates an enduring feature of academic life: genuinely new ideas often encounter resistance, particularly when they challenge established hierarchies of thought. Such resistance is natural and even necessary — it sharpens arguments and clarifies assumptions. At the same time, it reinforces the importance of preserving intellectual space for unconventional perspectives, especially in areas where conventional approaches alone have not solved the problem. In summary, we remain convinced that the idea merits discussion, irrespective of whether one ultimately supports or rejects it. If the article has succeeded in stimulating such discussion, then it has fulfilled its intended purpose View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Bergmann DM. Peer Review Report For: Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.184634.r432879) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v2#referee-response-432879 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Cowger W. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 29 Jul 2025 | for Version 2 Win Cowger , The Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research, Long Beach, California, USA 0 Views copyright © 2025 Cowger W. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I have reviewed the new manuscript and authors comments. I think the manuscript is greatly improved and am ok with moving to accept it. In general I have many fewer disagreements with the new manuscript and the ones that I have are more about my own personal opinions rather than the substance of the paper and arguments the author is making. I do recommend the author check the manuscript one more time as I did find a grammatical or formatting error "environment so irresponsibly with plastic васте is that this waste has". Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Waste management, plastic pollution, watershed fate and transport I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 12 Aug 2025 Hayk Minasyan, Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia Dear Dr. Win Cowger, Thank you very much for your feedback on the second version of my article. Your constructive and unbiased review of the first version has significantly improved the article. Your comments are especially valuable as you are a leading, recognized, and respected researcher and expert in the field. Thank you Sincerely Hayk Minasyan P.S. The error you pointed out is the result of incorrect formatting of the fonts of the word "waste". I have asked the editorial team of the journal to correct the error. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Cowger W. Peer Review Report For: Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.184634.r398933) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v2#referee-response-398933 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Cowger W. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 19 Jun 2025 | for Version 1 Win Cowger , The Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research, Long Beach, California, USA 0 Views copyright © 2025 Cowger W. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Summary: This is a commentary on the author's perspective about whether deep geological disposal of plastic makes sense and how it could be achieved. Major Issues: - Abstract not standard format, split into one two sentence paragraph and one longer one. - "70% of plastic is polluting the environment" seems high, papers cited are not primary literature for that number. I recommend looking into the original literature those numbers came from and determine if that is accurate and cite the original source. - This sentence is confusing: "For example, it forms The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which quickly captures new water surfaces ( Egger et al., 2020 )." - Many plastics in introduction just say there are large amounts of plastic, I think as a scientific study there should be numbers specifically stated, not just large amounts. For example, there are sources you can cite for how much plastic is in the ocean surface. I have added a few. - The first two sentences in the discussion could be combined. - Unclear in text what the author means by plastic disintegration, do they mean leachates, microplastics, nanoplastics? - Some of the first paragraph of the discussion seems unnecessary, for example listing off dates of different nuclear power plant developments. - I think more background on what deep geological disposal is in the introduction would be helpful. - The IAEA is already working heavily on plastic pollution, I don't know if it is necessary to have a new agency. - What is "the cost of plastic ecology"? - The case for deep geological disposal seems like a very similar strategy as landfilling and this is not discussed in the current manuscript, why not just landfill plastic? It is clear to me why you would want to separate radioactive waste into its own long term management stream. - Funding strategy seems convoluted, on one side it seems like the author is advocating for plastic to remain in circulation and have higher value, on the other it advocates for disposal and containment. Good please keep: - I do agree with the authors that this is a new concept worth discussing and theorizing about. Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature? Partly Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? Partly Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature? Partly Are the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments? Partly References 1. Eriksen M, Cowger W, Erdle L, Coffin S, et al.: A growing plastic smog, now estimated to be over 170 trillion plastic particles afloat in the world’s oceans—Urgent solutions required. PLOS ONE . 2023; 18 (3). Publisher Full Text 2. Kaandorp M, Lobelle D, Kehl C, Dijkstra H, et al.: Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debris. Nature Geoscience . 2023; 16 (8): 689-694 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Waste management, plastic pollution, watershed fate and transport I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 23 Jul 2025 Hayk Minasyan, Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia Dear Dr. Win Cowger, Thank you very much for your valuable comments. I have revised the manuscript according to them. Below is my response to your criticism and suggestions. -Reviewer: Abstract not standard format, split into one two sentence paragraph and one longer one. Response : Thank you for pointing this out. I have re-written the abstract. - Reviewer: "70% of plastic is polluting the environment" seems high, papers cited are not primary literature for that number. I recommend looking into the original literature those numbers came from and determine if that is accurate and cite the original source. Response : I have replaced the data by the results of 2025 study (primary literature (Houssini et al., 2025). - Reviewer: This sentence is confusing: "For example, it forms The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which quickly captures new water surfaces ( Egger et al., 2020 )." Response : I have removed that sentence. It is not critical for presenting the concept of DGD. - Reviewer: Many plastics in introduction just say there are large amounts of plastic, I think as a scientific study there should be numbers specifically stated, not just large amounts. For example, there are sources you can cite for how much plastic is in the ocean surface. I have added a few. Response : I agree, that precise numbers should be stated. Special thanks for your references: I have included their data to the article (Eriksen et al., 2023; Kaandorp et al.; 2023) - Reviewer: The first two sentences in the discussion could be combined. Response : Agree. I have combined the first two sentences in the discussion. - Reviewer: Unclear in text what the author means by plastic disintegration, do they mean leachates, microplastics, nanoplastics? Response : I have revised the text for more concrete explanation of the meaning of plastic disintegration. - Reviewer: Some of the first paragraph of the discussion seems unnecessary, for example listing off dates of different nuclear power plant developments. Response : I agree with you. I have removed the listing of different nuclear power plant developments from the text. - Reviewer: I think more background on what deep geological disposal is in the introduction would be helpful. Response : Thank you for your suggestion. I have added more background on what deep geological disposal is in the introduction. - Reviewer: The IAEA is already working heavily on plastic pollution, I don't know if it is necessary to have a new agency. Response : I have removed the fragment of the article regarding IAEA - Reviewer: What is "the cost of plastic ecology"? Response : Thank you for your question. This concept encompasses both: a). Direct economic costs : cleanup, waste infrastructure, lost tourism and fishing revenue, health care due to contamination, infrastructure damage (e.g., flooding); b). Ecological costs : pollution of marine and terrestrial ecosystems, greenhouse emissions, biodiversity losses, chemicals leaching, damage to ecosystem services. The discussion of “the cost of plastic ecology” is not indispensable to understand DGD concept and I have removed it from the text. References: 1. Cordier, Mateo, Takuro Uehara, Bethany Jorgensen, and Juan Baztan. “Reducing Plastic Production: Economic Loss or Environmental Gain?” Cambridge Prisms: Plastics 2 (2024): e2. https://doi.org/10.1017/plc.2024.3 . 2. “Lifetime Cost of Plastic 10 Times Higher for Low-Income Countries than Rich Ones, Revealing Cri.” Accessed July 1, 2025. https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10004441/lifetime-cost-plastic 3. “The Cost of Preventing Ocean Plastic Pollution.” OECD Environment Working Papers, March 4, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1787/5c41963b-en . 4. Beaumont, Nicola J., Margrethe Aanesen, Melanie C. Austen, Tobias Börger, James R. Clark, Matthew Cole, Tara Hooper, Penelope K. Lindeque, Christine Pascoe, and Kayleigh J. Wyles. “Global Ecological, Social and Economic Impacts of Marine Plastic.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 142 (May 2019): 189–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.022 - Reviewer: The case for deep geological disposal seems like a very similar strategy as landfilling and this is not discussed in the current manuscript, why not just landfill plastic? It is clear to me why you would want to separate radioactive waste into its own long term management stream. Response : Following your critical comment, I discussed and showed in the last paragraph of the Introduction the differences and numerous advantages of DGD over landfilling. - Reviewer: Funding strategy seems convoluted, on one side it seems like the author is advocating for plastic to remain in circulation and have higher value, on the other it advocates for disposal and containment. Response : The funding concerns plastic waste and is aimed at stimulating its selective collection for further GDG. I have added explanations in the relevant parts of the text for greater clarity. Thank you again for your comments and suggestions Sincerely Hayk Minasyan View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests reply Respond Report a concern Cowger W. Peer Review Report For: Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.164194.r389475) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v1#referee-response-389475 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Vaverková M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 10 Sep 2024 | for Version 1 Magdalena Vaverková , Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland 0 Views copyright © 2024 Vaverková M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions As someone who has been engaged in waste management for over 20 years, I found the article’s premise—deep geological disposal of plastic waste—intriguing, yet deeply problematic. While the article proposes this as a new approach to managing the vast quantities of mismanaged plastic waste (MPW), it overlooks several crucial aspects of plastic waste management that have proven to be more practical, efficient, and sustainable. I believe this concept lacks feasibility both from an economic and environmental standpoint. One of the most striking issues with the article is the inconsistency in its discussion of plastic’s chemical nature. On one hand, it is acknowledged that plastic can take hundreds to thousands of years to decompose, suggesting that it is inert and resistant to degradation. On the other hand, the article raises concerns about leachates and environmental contamination, which implies that plastic waste does, in fact, react and break down into harmful substances. These contradictions undermine the argument for deep geological disposal. If plastic is inert and non-reactive, the environmental risk should be minimal. However, if plastics release harmful chemicals, placing them in deep geological layers could lead to unforeseen contamination, much like the challenges associated with hazardous waste disposal. The suggestion to treat plastic waste similarly to nuclear waste by storing it in deep geological repositories overlooks the fact that plastic waste is far more abundant, widely dispersed, and less hazardous than nuclear waste. The costs associated with collecting, transporting, and storing plastic in deep geological repositories would be astronomical, and these financial burdens far outweigh any potential benefits. Furthermore, nuclear waste is stored this way due to its high-level, long-term radioactive danger. Plastic waste, while a significant pollutant, can be more effectively managed through other methods, including recycling, incineration for energy recovery, and the development of biodegradable alternatives. Over the years, I have seen substantial progress in both recycling technologies and waste-to-energy systems. Many types of plastic waste, particularly PET, can be effectively recycled, and non-recyclable plastics can be incinerated in highly regulated incinerators to produce energy. Japan’s approach to waste management, for example, includes advanced waste-to-energy systems that capture a significant amount of the country’s energy from non-recyclable waste while keeping emissions under tight control. By contrast, the article’s deep geological disposal concept ignores the benefits of energy recovery from plastic incineration. Given the enormous global need for energy and the ongoing development of incineration technologies that meet modern environmental standards, it would make much more sense to focus on optimizing energy recovery from plastic waste than to bury it in geological sites. Additionally, improving recycling infrastructure and reducing single-use plastics are more viable long-term strategies than deep geological disposal. The article does highlight one concept worth exploring further—treating plastic waste as a valuable commodity. However, rather than applying this idea to deep geological storage, it should be linked to the principles of a circular economy. In recent years, there has been growing interest in treating waste as a resource, and plastics are no exception. By developing better market mechanisms for plastic waste, particularly through innovations in chemical recycling or even upcycling processes, we could unlock economic opportunities while addressing the environmental challenges posed by plastic pollution. Conclusion While the article raises important concerns about the growing problem of plastic waste, the proposed solution of deep geological disposal is neither economically nor environmentally viable. Decades of experience in waste management have shown that more practical solutions—such as advanced recycling, waste-to-energy, and policy-driven reductions in plastic production—are far more promising. Furthermore, there is significant potential to treat plastic waste as a resource within a circular economy framework, which could help mitigate the environmental crisis caused by plastic waste without resorting to drastic, impractical measures like deep geological disposal. In my professional view, the future of plastic waste management lies in innovation, sustainable technologies, and responsible consumption, not in burying the problem underground. Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature? Yes Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? No Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature? No Are the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Waste management I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 25 Oct 2024 Hayk Minasyan, Faculty of Biology, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia Article Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons Hayk Minasyan Hayk Minasyna’s response to the review of Magdalena Vaverková Author Response to Reviewer Author response : Dear Magdalena Vaverková, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland Thank you for giving me the opportunity to start a discussion with you regarding your critical comments. I wrote at the end of my article: “This approach to plastic waste management requires future research and discussion regarding the optimization of the concept, its practices, regulations, and policies.” Unfortunately, you did not come up with any specific rational proposal, analysis of the concept, or attempt to optimize the concept or use its elements that, in your opinion, could be useful. However, any radically negative response can be useful in igniting debate and bringing the idea of ​​deep geological disposal of plastic waste to the attention of open-minded researchers. I will try to provide references, where possible, from my article, so that they are easier to find. Reviewer comments As someone who has been engaged in waste management for over 20 years, I found the article’s premise—deep geological disposal of plastic waste—intriguing, yet deeply problematic. Author response : In the last 20 years, the amount of plastic waste has more than doubled (OECD Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060 OECD Publishing (2022) https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/global-plastics-outlook_aa1edf33-en ] It means that a solution to the problem has not yet been found. Reviewer comments While the article proposes this as a new approach to managing the vast quantities of mismanaged plastic waste (MPW), it overlooks several crucial aspects of plastic waste management that have proven to be more practical, efficient, and sustainable. I believe this concept lacks feasibility both from an economic and environmental standpoint. Author response : While belief holds great value in many discussions, it is not typically considered a scientific measure. In order to assess the feasibility of the concept from both economic and environmental perspectives, it would be helpful if the reviewer could present relevant economic calculations, scientific data, and detailed explanations. Reviewer comments One of the most striking issues with the article is the inconsistency in its discussion of plastic’s chemical nature. On one hand, it is acknowledged that plastic can take hundreds to thousands of years to decompose, suggesting that it is inert and resistant to degradation. On the other hand, the article raises concerns about leachates and environmental contamination, which implies that plastic waste does react and break down into harmful substances. Author response : There is no inconsistency: plastic waste can generate leachate, a liquid that forms when water percolates through waste. In deep geological disposal with appropriate technical conditions (isolation, sealing walls for liquids, etc.) plastic waste breakdown is excluded and leachate generation is impossible . Reviewer comments These contradictions undermine the argument for deep geological disposal. Author response : There are no contradictions. In a duly technical approach, nothing undermines the idea of deep geological disposal. Reviewer comments If plastic is inert and non-reactive, the environmental risk should be minimal. However, if plastics release harmful chemicals, placing them in deep geological layers could lead to unforeseen contamination, much like the challenges associated with hazardous waste disposal. . Author response : Disposal of plastic waste in deep and dry repositories is safe and can’t lead to contamination. Reviewer comments The suggestion to treat plastic waste similarly to nuclear waste by storing it in deep geological repositories overlooks the fact that plastic waste is far more abundant, widely dispersed, and less hazardous than nuclear waste. Author response : Yes, plastic waste is less hazardous and more abundant than nuclear waste, but this argument is not something principally against deep geological disposal of plastic waste. Reviewer comments The costs associated with collecting, transporting, and storing plastic in deep geological repositories would be astronomical, and these financial burdens far outweigh any potential benefits. Author response : To make such assertions with confidence, it would also be expected that the reviewer possess a high level of expertise in the field of economics, supported by financial calculations and thorough estimates. Moreover, the reviewer appears to overlook the current limitations of methods like recycling, incineration for energy recovery, and the development of biodegradable alternatives. These approaches, while promising, have yet to demonstrate sufficient effectiveness to curb the rapid accumulation of plastic waste. Reviewer comments Furthermore, nuclear waste is stored this way due to its top-level, long-term radioactive danger. Author response : Yes, nuclear waste is stored this way due to its high-level, long-term radioactive danger, but again, it does not mean that plastic waste may not be stored by deep geological technology. Reviewer comments Plastic waste, while a significant pollutant, can be more effectively managed through other methods, including recycling, incineration for energy recovery, and the development of biodegradable alternatives. Author response : The reviewer ignores the fact that the methods she mentions, including recycling, incineration for energy recovery, and the development of biodegradable alternatives, are not yet effective enough and plastic waste continues to accumulate rapidly. I would like to draw the reviewer's attention to the fact that no more than 10% of plastic waste has been recycled, 11% burned, 8% buried, and the remaining 70% pollutes the environment ( Enfrin et al., 2019 , Zaman and Newman, 2021 ). Reviewer comments Over the years, I have seen substantial progress in both recycling technologies and waste-to-energy systems. Author response : Nevertheless, at present recycling technology processes only 10% of plastic waste; waste-to-energy technology burns 11% of plastic waste. Reviewer comments Many types of plastic waste, particularly PET, can be effectively recycled, and non-recyclable plastics can be incinerated in highly regulated incinerators to produce energy. Author response : While recycling is an important tool, it cannot be viewed as a standalone solution to the plastic waste crisis. The complex nature of the problem requires more than one method of management. By the year 2060, there is a projected trajectory for plastic waste to experience an approximately threefold increase. Within this context, nearly 50 % of the total plastic waste will continue to be deposited in landfills, with a recycling rate of <20 % (OECD Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060 OECD Publishing (2022) https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/global-plastics-outlook_aa1edf33-en ). In addition, recycling plastic is not preferable in most cases because it is technologically complex and expensive, many types of plastic cannot be reused, and finally, it is impossible to recycle the same plastic endlessly. References: Aydin M, Degirmenci T, Bozatli O, Balsalobre-Lorente D. Fresh evidence of the impact of economic complexity, health expenditure, natural resources, plastic consumption, and renewable energy in air pollution deaths in the USA? An empirical approach. Science of The Total Environment [Internet]. 2024 Apr;921:171127. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S004896972401266X ) Dong L, Huang Z, Qin Y, Zhi W. Industrialized fine physical regeneration process and economic benefit assessment for recycling waste HDPE containers. Journal of Cleaner Production [Internet]. 2024 Apr [cited 2024 Sep 10];447:141477. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652624009259 Merrington A. Recycling of plastics. In: Applied Plastics Engineering Handbook [Internet]. Elsevier; 2024 [cited 2024 Sep 10]. p. 191–217. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780323886673000060 Reviewer comments Japan’s approach to waste management, for example, includes advanced waste-to-energy systems that capture a significant amount of the country’s energy from non-recyclable waste while keeping emissions under tight control. By contrast, the article’s deep geological disposal concept ignores the benefits of energy recovery from plastic incineration. Author response : It seems there may have been some misunderstanding or misinterpretation of my article. The reviewer contrasts the ideas presented in the article with current waste management technologies without offering a clear logical basis for such conclusions. This leads to certain assumptions that remain unproven. The idea of deep geological disposal of plastic waste does not ignore other technologies of waste management including plastic incineration. It should be used simultaneously with other technologies. In combination with all modern technologies of plastic waste management, deep geological disposal may help to mitigate the problem of plastic waste. As to plastic incineration, it is dangerous for the environment due to ecological risks: Air Pollution : Incineration releases toxic heavy metals, dioxins, furans, into the air. They poison humans and animals. Dioxins and furans accumulate in the food chain. Greenhouse Gas Emissions : Burning plastic releases carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases, contributing to climate change. Toxic Ash : Incineration generates toxic ash that needs to be disposed of in landfills and can contaminate soil and water. Microplastics : Incineration may produce microplastics that can be released into the atmosphere or water systems, causing further ecological harm. Due to these risks, incineration is not a preferred method for managing plastic waste. References: Luo L, Guo S, Shen D, Shentu J, Lu L, Qi S, et al. Characteristics and release potential of microplastics in municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash. Chemosphere [Internet]. 2024 Sep [cited 2024 Sep 10];364:143163. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0045653524020605 Jin M, Sun M, Liu J, Dong C, Xue J. Influence of operating parameters on the yield of micro-plastics from plastics incineration. Science of The Total Environment [Internet]. 2024 Feb [cited 2024 Sep 10];912:169347. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048969723079779 Rogers K, WaMaina E, Barber A, Masood S, Love C, Kim YH, et al. Emissions from plastic incineration induce inflammation, oxidative stress, and impaired bioenergetics in primary human respiratory epithelial cells. Toxicological Sciences [Internet]. 2024 May 28 [cited 2024 Sep 10];199(2):301–15. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/199/2/301/7636471 Reviewer comments Given the enormous global need for energy and the ongoing development of incineration technologies that meet modern environmental standards, it would make much more sense to focus on optimizing energy recovery from plastic waste than to bury it in geological sites. Author response : The reviewer strongly overestimates plastic incineration. At present, there are no incineration technologies that meet modern environmental standards: References: Jung S, Jung H, Ahn Y. Plastic-to-energy: Process and economic–environmental assessment of a recycling technology. Process Safety and Environmental Protection [Internet]. 2024 Mar [cited 2024 Sep 10];183:1051–8. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0957582024000806 Pathak G, Nichter M, Hardon A, Moyer E. The open burning of plastic wastes is an urgent global health issue. Annals of Global Health [Internet]. 2024 Jan 12 [cited 2024 Sep 10];90(1):3. Available from: https://annalsofglobalhealth.org/articles/10.5334/aogh.4232/ Besides, energy recovery from plastic waste (plastic incineration) results in irreversible loss of plastic. Burying plastic in the ground preserves plastic for future generations of people when the planet's hydrocarbons run out. As for energy production, from the ecological point of view, it must be obtained from renewable sources such as solar energy, wind, hydropower, etc. In this sense, nuclear energy is much more efficient and ecologically safer than burning plastic. References: Pourasl HH, Barenji RV, Khojastehnezhad VM. Solar energy status in the world: A comprehensive review. Energy Reports [Internet]. 2023 Nov [cited 2024 Sep 11];10:3474–93. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352484723014579 Kaldellis JK, Boulogiorgou D. Renewable energy: Wind energy. In: Living with Climate Change [Internet]. Elsevier; 2024 [cited 2024 Sep 11]. p. 513–57. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780443185151000174 Hatamkhani A, Moridi A, Haghighi AT. Incorporating ecosystem services value into the optimal development of hydropower projects. Renewable Energy [Internet]. 2023 Feb [cited 2024 Sep 11];203:495–505. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960148122018754 Krūmiņš J, Kļaviņš M. Investigating the potential of nuclear energy in achieving a carbon-free energy future. Energies [Internet]. 2023 Apr 22 [cited 2024 Sep 11];16(9):3612. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/9/3612 Reviewer comments Additionally, improving recycling infrastructure and reducing single-use plastics are more viable long-term strategies than deep geological disposal. Author response : The reviewer appears to contrast the ideas presented in the article with existing plastic waste management technologies without providing clear justification for these comparisons, which seems to lead to conclusions that may not be fully substantiated. Reviewer comments The article does highlight one concept worth exploring further—treating plastic waste as a valuable commodity. However, rather than applying this idea to deep geological storage, it should be linked to the principles of a circular economy. Author response : Plastic is a valuable commodity and it is true for both deep geological storage and the principles of a circular economy. It is true for all other technologies as well. The reviewer persistently contrasts deep geological disposal versus the principles of a circular economy. Applying the idea of plastic waste's monetary value to deep geological storage does not exclude its application to the principles of a circular economy and other strategies. Reviewer comments In recent years, there has been growing interest in treating waste as a resource, and plastics are no exception. By developing better market mechanisms for plastic waste, particularly through innovations in chemical recycling or even upcycling processes, we could unlock economic opportunities while addressing the environmental challenges posed by plastic pollution. Author response : It sounds like a quote from a public speech. Yes, in recent years there has been growing interest in treating waste as a resource. However, plastic waste continues to accumulate on land, seas, and oceans. Reviewer's Conclusion Reviewer comments While the article raises important concerns about the growing problem of plastic waste, the proposed solution of deep geological disposal is neither economically nor environmentally viable. Author response : Again, for such a categorical conclusion the reviewer should present economic calculations and reasonable explanations as to why deep geological disposal is not environmentally viable. Reviewer comments Decades of experience in waste management have shown that more practical solutions—such as advanced recycling, waste-to-energy, and policy-driven reductions in plastic production—are far more promising. Author response : Maybe the solutions mentioned are promising, but today plastic waste continues accumulating. Again the same statistics: 10% of waste has been recycled, 11% burned, 8% buried, and the remaining 70% pollutes the environment. Declarative statements about promising technologies do not change the catastrophic state of affairs with waste accumulation. My article proposes additional measures to collect plastic from the seas, oceans, and landfills and bury it safely as a resource for future generations. Deep geological disposal is not opposed to all other plastic waste management technologies, but is offered as an additional tool to solve together with other technologies the very serious problems facing humanity in connection with plastic waste. Reviewer comments Furthermore, there is significant potential to treat plastic waste as a resource within a circular economy framework, which could help mitigate the environmental crisis caused by plastic waste without resorting to drastic, impractical measures like deep geological disposal. In my professional view, the future of plastic waste management lies in innovation, sustainable technologies, and responsible consumption, not in burying the problem underground. Author response : Тhe reviewer frames her perspective as a personal professional stance, though it aligns with the widely accepted principles of innovation, sustainable technologies, and responsible consumption in waste management. Regarding the suggestion of burying the problem underground, the article specifically advocates for the storage of plastic waste that cannot be recycled, has already undergone multiple recycling processes, or poses significant risks if incinerated or processed by existing technologies. Unfortunately, the primary concern raised by Dr. Magdalena Vaverková centers on a rather dismissive critique of deep geological disposal, which seems to overshadow other important aspects of the article. Her stance appears to impede an objective review of other proposed ideas, such as mechanisms for collecting plastic waste from oceans, seas, and landfills, as well as the organizational, political, and financial strategies for implementing deep geological disposal. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests reply Respond Report a concern Vaverková M. Peer Review Report For: Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 13 :504 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.164194.r319698) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v1#referee-response-319698 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Deep geological disposal of plastic waste:...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v3&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Minasyan H'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v3/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504", templates : { twitter : "Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons. Minasyan H, published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/13-504/v3" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/149702/194890") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "194890"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "401926": 0, "401927": 0, "401924": 0, "401925": 0, "401922": 0, "401923": 0, "437504": 0, "443649": 0, "452622": 0, "443662": 0, "452623": 0, "443663": 0, "452620": 0, "443660": 0, "452621": 0, "443661": 0, "401930": 0, "452619": 0, "401931": 0, "401928": 0, "401929": 0, "452628": 0, "443668": 0, "452626": 0, "443666": 0, "452627": 0, "443667": 0, "452624": 0, "443664": 0, "452625": 0, "443665": 0, "332317": 0, "332316": 0, "332319": 0, "332318": 0, "362029": 0, "362031": 0, "362030": 0, "321322": 0, "362033": 0, "362032": 0, "445246": 0, "447294": 0, "445247": 0, "445244": 0, "447292": 0, "445245": 0, "447293": 0, "445242": 0, "447290": 0, "445243": 0, "447291": 0, "445240": 0, "445241": 0, "348997": 0, "348996": 0, "348999": 0, "447300": 0, "348998": 0, "447298": 0, "447299": 0, "445248": 0, "447296": 0, "447297": 0, "349005": 0, "349004": 0, "349001": 0, "349000": 0, "349003": 0, "349002": 0, "398934": 0, "398933": 18, "450148": 0, "450149": 0, "450146": 5, "450147": 0, "389475": 16, "312188": 0, "312189": 0, "312190": 0, "312191": 0, "312199": 0, "312192": 0, "312193": 0, "308116": 0, "339605": 0, "308117": 0, "308118": 0, "339607": 0, "308119": 0, "339606": 0, "308124": 0, "286364": 0, "308125": 0, "286365": 0, "286366": 0, "286367": 0, "308120": 0, "308121": 0, "308122": 0, "308123": 0, "286363": 0, "286372": 0, "286368": 0, "286369": 0, "286370": 0, "286371": 0, "290988": 0, "290989": 0, "290990": 0, "290991": 0, "290996": 0, "451254": 0, "290997": 0, "451255": 0, "451253": 0, "290992": 0, "290993": 0, "290994": 0, "290995": 0, "451262": 0, "451260": 0, "451261": 0, "451258": 0, "451259": 0, "451256": 0, "451257": 0, "319695": 0, "319700": 0, "319701": 0, "319702": 0, "319703": 0, "319697": 0, "319698": 51, "319699": 0, "319705": 0, "319707": 0, "432878": 0, "432879": 11, "432877": 0, "303860": 0, "432886": 0, "303861": 0, "437495": 0, "303862": 0, "432884": 0, "303863": 0, "432885": 0, "432882": 0, "432883": 0, "432880": 0, "432881": 0, "303868": 0, "437502": 0, "303869": 0, "437503": 0, "437500": 10, "437501": 0, "303864": 0, "437498": 0, "303865": 0, "437499": 0, "303866": 0, "437496": 0, "303867": 0, "437497": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "c4fc0091-6f7a-47e2-bf16-fa40ddb4f71d"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });