I am providing an adjudicative review upon request by the editor. I have consulted the reviewer comments and author response and I have evaluated the revised manuscript. I am satisfied that the authors have satisfactorily addressed reviewer comments, although aligned with the concerns of on reviewer, I do believe the authors could have done a better job of shifting definitions and procedures to supplementary information to improve the presentation of key results.

This contribution features an engineering approach to fill a notable gap in the analysis of PHA derived materials from lignocellulose. While the conclusions are presented with a bit of "rose colored glasses" perspective, the authors have provided clear definitions of how and why specific approaches/assumptions/benchmark data were used throughout. I appreciate that one expert reviewer may not concur with the approach, but my perspective is that the clear presentation makes this contribution useful to the community. I support acceptance.

The revised manuscript discloses a DS-LCA-TEA evaluation of a process that shows much promise. As such this contribution is important to the community and the key findings are suitably summarized in the Green Foundation Box.