Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons

Hayk Minasyan

doi:10.12688/f1000research.149702.1

Home Browse Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Opinion Article

Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons

[version 1; peer review: 2 not approved]

Hayk Minasyan

PUBLISHED 17 May 2024

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

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Plastic production is growing, plastic waste is accumulating, and current waste management methods (recycling, incineration, etc.) are not yet able to solve this waste problem. Proposals and projects aimed at solving or facilitating the problem of plastic waste are therefore relevant.

This article proposes a deep geological disposal method for plastic waste projects. The prototype for this project was the deep geological disposal of nuclear waste. Although plastic waste and nuclear waste are fundamentally different, the adequacy of this approach is justified by the fact that plastic waste, such as nuclear waste, has a a long degradation period and poses great danger to the environment, animals, and humans. The article is conceptual and examines the aspects necessary for the implementation of the project, such as the establishment of a special international UN agency for plastic waste management, specific sources of funding, giving plastic waste a monetary value, applying free market principles, and using existing potential opportunities for deep geological disposal of plastic waste. This article also discusses the proposed concept for finding more optimal options.

Keywords

Plastic, waste, waste management, geological disposal.

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: © 2024 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 1; peer review: 2 not approved]. F1000Research 2024, 13:504 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149702.1) First published: 17 May 2024, 13:504 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149702.1) Latest published: 17 Jul 2025, 13:504 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149702.2)

Introduction

Over the past 70 years, more than 10 billion tons of plastic have been produced. Approximately 10% of waste has been recycled, 11% burned, 8% buried, and the remaining 70% pollutes the environment (Enfrin et al., 2019, Zaman and Newman, 2021). Approximately 80% of ocean plastic litter comes from land. More than 10 million tons of plastics enter the oceans annually (Carney Almroth and Eggert, 2019, Chassignet et al., 2021). It is not known exactly how much plastic in the ocean remains on the surface, how much floats at different depths, or how much sinks to the bottom. The amount of macroplastics on the ocean surface is large. For example, it forms The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which quickly captures new water surfaces (Egger et al., 2020).

Large amounts of plastics are buried in landfills (Rahman 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 pH, 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, Zhu et al., 2021). 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. The aim of this article is to offer deep geological disposal of plastic waste as a potentially new approach.

Methods

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

A 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

Plastics have been destroyed very slowly in nature. It can take tens to hundreds of years (Quecholac-Piña 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 in Obninsk (in the Soviet Union) began to produce electricity; in 1956, the Calder Hall nuclear power plant in the United Kingdom began to operate; and in 1958, the Shippingport Atomic Power Station in the USA began to generate 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 management have 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 management require 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 into MPs 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. Efforts are underway to enhance nuclear waste storage, explore advanced reactor designs, and develop waste-reprocessing technologies. Similarly, progress in plastic waste management includes the development of recycling technologies, exploration of alternatives, and implementation of waste reduction strategies.

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. But the comparison of plastic waste with nuclear waste is adequate in the sense that it shows: 1. The seriousness of the problem of plastic waste, 2. The need for broad international cooperation in managing plastic waste, and 3. The need to create (outside or inside UNEP) an Agency for Plastic Waste Management, which would be part of the UN system; 4. The need to create funds to raise money to solve the problem of plastic waste; 5. There is a need to apply some criteria for nuclear waste management to solve the problem of plastic waste.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), established in December 1957 by the United Nations (von Mehren, 1959) may be a model for creating the International Plastic Waste Agency. However, on many specific issues, the IAEA and plastic waste agencies will differ. For example, IAEA’s main sources of funding are the Regular Budget Fund, the Technical Cooperation Fund and Extra budgetary Program Funds that are supplied by Member States and by other donors (Getmansky, 2017). The sources of funding for Plastic Waste Agency Management (PWAM) include governments, foundations, corporations, international and local public organizations, individuals, other donors and taxes paid by plastic producers and plastic item manufacturers. Establishing a connection between the volumes of plastic produced, the income of plastic producers, and the money spent on plastic waste management will make it possible to more accurately determine the cost of plastic ecology.

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. Nuclear waste is kept in containers at nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons factories, or stored in burial grounds isolated from contact with the environment. In contrast, plastic waste pollutes the environment everywhere; almost all people come into contact with it and contribute to its formation. To solve the problem of plastic waste collection, it is necessary to provide monetary value for this waste. It is promising to create a market for plastic waste and apply all the mechanisms of the free market and trade to it, especially because plastic waste can become a valuable primary raw material in the future.

With stable financing of the demand for plastic waste, firms, companies, and private enterprises engaged in the collection, transportation, and storage of plastic waste will spontaneously appear, and plastic producers themselves may want to create subsidiaries involved in the collection, transportation, and disposal of plastic waste. If plastic waste prices are set to make collecting and selling waste profitable, there could even be a fleet devoted solely to cleaning up plastic waste in the oceans. Ships specializing in the removal of debris from water basins can more successfully apply technologies that remove plastic without harming aquatic life.

If plastic waste is removed from the seas and oceans and collected from landfills, the question becomes what to do with all this, given that plastic waste cannot be recycled or burned. One possible solution could be to deposit plastic waste inside numerous 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, and they themselves represent a major environmental problem (Bennett, 2016, Cui et al., 2020, Kushwaha et al., 2019, Liu et al., 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, 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). Nations that employ nuclear power generally prefer to store radioactive waste by placing it in underground mines made up of a network of tunnels or passages linked to disposal tunnels situated several hundred meters below the surface (Popov et al., 2019). However, considering abandoned mines and caverns as storage sites, it is important to assess the safety and stability of these spaces before any large-scale redevelopment or repurposing efforts. There are several important factors that make this option potentially problematic but not impossible.
1. Environmental impact: The placement of plastic waste in such locations can have significant environmental consequences. Plastic waste can release harmful chemicals over time, contaminating the soil, groundwater, and surrounding ecosystems. Pollution can have long-lasting effects on plants, animals, and human health.
2. Leachate concerns: 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.
3. Potential for migration: 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.
4. Future land use: Some abandoned locations may have potential for future use, such as reclamation, habitat restoration, or even tourism. Using them as plastic waste dumping sites limits these possibilities and hinders the long-term sustainable development of these areas.

The above arguments for and against the use of abandoned mines, holes, and caverns for plastic waste disposal indicate that the idea of plastic waste disposal is not universal, and in each case, its application must be weighed and all local circumstances taken into account.

There is no data on how much plastic waste can be deposited in them, 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). Countries where mines and quarries are used to deposit plastic waste can profit from long-term leasing and storage of their mines and quarries. Parallel to depositing plastic waste in these locations, it is also indispensable to continue focusing on reducing the generation of plastic waste, promoting recycling and reuse, and developing sustainable waste management systems. Equally important is investment in proper waste infrastructure and raising awareness of plastic pollution. Implementing effective policies and regulations can help address the plastic waste crisis in an environmentally friendly and sustainable manner. Encouraging the development and use of non-biodegradable but environmentally friendly alternatives to plastics can also contribute to a long-term solution.

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.

Conclusion

Conventional plastics are made from petroleum and natural gas. The latter are extracted from the bowels of Earth. According to the main concept of the article, extracted petroleum and natural gas can be partially returned to the bowels of the earth in the form of plastic waste that pollutes the environment and 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, plastic waste at Earth’s depths can become a valuable raw material for the production of plastic and other hydrocarbon products. This approach to plastic waste management requires future research and discussion regarding the optimization of the concept, its practices, regulations, and policies.

Data availability statement

No data are associated with this article.

Acknowledgments

None.

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
Enfrin M, Dumée LF, Lee J: Nano/microplastics in water and wastewater treatment processes – Origin, impact and potential solutions. Water Res. 2019; 161: 621–638. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Reference Source
Getmansky A: Who gets what from international organizations? The case of the international atomic energy agency’s technical cooperation. Int. Stud. Q. 2017; 61(3): 596–611. (Accessed: 2nd March 2023). Publisher Full Text Reference Source
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
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
Rahman M d M, Sultan MB, Alam M: Microplastics and adsorbed micropollutants as emerging contaminants in landfill: A mini review. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health. 2023; 31: 100420. (Accessed: 23rd December 2023). Publisher 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. Second Edition.Elsevier; 2022; pp. 419–440. Reference Source
von Mehren RB : The international atomic energy agency in world politics. J. Int. Aff. 1959; 13(1): 57–69. (Accessed: 2nd March 2023). 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
Zaman A, Newman P: Plastics: are they part of the zero-waste agenda or the toxic-waste agenda? Sustain Earth. 2021; 4(1): 4. Publisher Full Text
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 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 17 May 2024

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 (2)

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

© 2024 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

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Minasyan H. Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons [version 1; peer review: 2 not approved]. F1000Research 2024, 13:504 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149702.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 17 May 2024

Views

Reviewer Report 19 Jun 2025

Win Cowger, The Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research, Long Beach, California, USA

Not Approved

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 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.

CITE

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

Views

Reviewer Report 10 Sep 2024

Magdalena Vaverková, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

Not Approved

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 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

CITE

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

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 17 May 2024

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 17 Jul 25		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

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

6 Views

29 Jul 2025 | for Version 2

Win Cowger, The Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research, Long Beach, California, USA

6 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

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.

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.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

13 Views

19 Jun 2025 | for Version 1

Win Cowger, The Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research, Long Beach, California, USA

13 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Not Approved

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

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Waste management, plastic pollution, watershed fate and transport

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

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

42 Views

10 Sep 2024 | for Version 1

Magdalena Vaverková, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

42 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Not Approved

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

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

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

[1] Ahluwalia VK: Green chemistry and the environment. New Delhi, India: The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI); 2019.

[2] 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

[3] 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

[4] Bennett K: Abandoned mines — environmental, social and economic challenges.2016; 2016: 241–252. Reference Source

[5] 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

[6] 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

[7] 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

[8] 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

[9] 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

[10] 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

[11] 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

[12] Enfrin M, Dumée LF, Lee J: Nano/microplastics in water and wastewater treatment processes – Origin, impact and potential solutions. Water Res. 2019; 161: 621–638. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[13] Getmansky A: Who gets what from international organizations? The case of the international atomic energy agency’s technical cooperation. Int. Stud. Q. 2017; 61(3): 596–611. (Accessed: 2nd March 2023). Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[14] Geyer R: Production, use, and fate of synthetic polymers. Plastic Waste and Recycling. Elsevier; 2020. (Accessed: 28th December 2023). Reference Source

[15] 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

[16] Kasperski T, Storm A: Eternal care: Nuclear waste as toxic legacy and future fantasy. Gesch. Ges. 2020; 46(4): 682–705. Publisher Full Text

[17] 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

[18] 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

[19] 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

[20] 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

[21] 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

[22] 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

[23] 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

[24] 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

[25] 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

[26] Petrescu FI: Proper management of planetary hydrocarbon resources. Rochester, NY: 2020. Reference Source

[27] 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

[28] 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

[29] Rahman M d M, Sultan MB, Alam M: Microplastics and adsorbed micropollutants as emerging contaminants in landfill: A mini review. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health. 2023; 31: 100420. (Accessed: 23rd December 2023). Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[30] 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

[31] Saigustia C, Robak S: Review of potential energy storage in abandoned mines in Poland. Energies. 2021; 14(19): 6272. Reference Source

[32] 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

[33] Strandberg U, Andrén M: Editorial: Nuclear waste management in a globalised world. J. Risk Res. 2009; 12(7–8): 879–895. Publisher Full Text

[34] 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. Second Edition.Elsevier; 2022; pp. 419–440. Reference Source

[35] von Mehren RB : The international atomic energy agency in world politics. J. Int. Aff. 1959; 13(1): 57–69. (Accessed: 2nd March 2023). Reference Source

[36] 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

[37] 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

[38] 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

[39] 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

[40] 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

[41] 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

[42] Zaman A, Newman P: Plastics: are they part of the zero-waste agenda or the toxic-waste agenda? Sustain Earth. 2021; 4(1): 4. Publisher Full Text

[43] 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

Deep geological disposal of plastic waste: Pros and cons

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Data availability statement

Acknowledgments

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated