The manuscript reported the first fully integrated DS-LCA–TEA for the production of lignocellulosic PHA biocomposites. The topic is interesting, and the interpretation of all the results was easy to follow. The paper is recommended to be accepted after a major revision.
1. The first point in the Green Foundation is too long, and the third point is too short. Rewrite them.
2. The graphical abstracts need to be redrawn, as the current version does not display the article results.
3. The first and second sentences of the introduction contain redundant expressions. Please rewrite them.
4. Merging the third and fourth sentences of the introduction
5. Data inconsistency: The abstract section states the net GWP for PHA as 0.21 kg CO2/kg, but the description following Table 8 in the main text indicates -0.21 kg CO2/kg.
6. The author did not account for power generation credits in the LCA, yet the variable operating cost is shown as negative in the TEA. Is this method fair?
7. The main text mentions that fossil-based plastics have a production cost of €0.8 to 1.5 per kilogram, but the second point in the Green Foundation's statement describes a minimum market price of €7 per kilogram for polypropylene (PP), resulting in a contradiction.
8. The article uses inconsistent expressions for 1 kt/y, with some instances using 1 ktpa. Please standardize the writing style.
9. The LCA Section contains extensive descriptions of process procedures, which should be separated into a separate section.
10. The LCI for PHA do not include electricity consumption, yet the main text indicates that PHA biosynthesis consumes electricity.
11. The text indicates that PHA's net electricity generation is 1.2 GWh, yet the LCA calculation does not account for the electricity generation credit.
12. LCI should include clear input and output, and avoid products also included in the table.
13. The article contains some unnecessary content, such as explanations of technical terms and the description of the ReCiPe 2016 method, which can be deleted.
14. Capital cost should include the installation factor according to the algorithm in the NERL report to calculate the installation cost.
15. In Table 3, the equipment size is smaller than the baseline size. Is this calculation method reasonable? Is the equipment size derived solely from laboratory flow rates suitable for the CAPEX calculation formula?
16. The author must specify their allocation method, and comparisons of single scores must be based on identical boundary ranges and allocation methods.
17. The author needs to specifically analyze the causes of the environmental impact results. The descriptions of the data bars should not be discussed in excessive detail in the main text.
18. A graph analyzing the GWP contribution of PHAs should be presented and discussed.
19. This work compares with the four papers in Table 8, requiring all data bars to be selected from the same region, not just electricity.
20. All figures must be drawn using the same style and optimized for visualization.
21. The TEA section states that the indirect capital cost is 0.06 times the annual capital cost (0.24 × 0.25), but Equation 15 shows it as 0.25.
22. The 1.9-fold factor in Equation 16 does not match the 1.95-fold factor in the main text.
23. The article states that “...the total operating cost is US$7.7/kg PHA,” but according to the sum of the variable operating cost formula: 1.61 + 0.97 + 3.71 = 6.29, which does not match 7.7.
24. Contradictions in some of the data within the article may cause readers to lose confidence in this paper.
25. It is recommended to present the contribution distribution of TEA using a waterfall chart.
26. The author needs to polish the article, remove redundant descriptions, and add some critical discussion.

This paper advances green chemistry through valorizing lignocellulosic residues, preventing waste, circularizing resources, and displacing fossil-based single-use plastics, with safer high-value biodegradable and biocompatible biomaterials.
Authors have addressed comments from reviewers.