Mapping anthropogenic mineral generation in China and its implications for a circular economy

Anthropogenic mineral is absorbing wide concern in the context of circular economy, but its generation mechanism and quantity from product to waste remain unclear. Here we consider three product groups, 30 products, and use the revised Weibull lifespan model to map the generation of anthropogenic mineral and 23 types of the capsulated materials by targeting their evolution from 2010 to 2050. Total weight of anthropogenic mineral on average in China reached 39 Mt in 2010, but it will double in 2022 and quadruple in 2045. Stocks of precious metals and rare earths will increase faster than most base materials. The total economic potential in yearly-generated anthropogenic mineral is anticipated to grow markedly from 100 billion US$ in 2020 to 400 billion US$ in 2050. Furthermore, anthropogenic mineral of around 20 materials will be capable to meet projected consumption of three product groups by 2050.

generation is occurring at a rate comparable to the rate of production. If one looks naively at figure 4a, one might conclude that anthropogenic minerals are only going to be sufficient for Pb because it is the only one for which the result approaches zero.

Randolph Kirchain
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author): Dear editor and authors, I have now had time to read and consider this manuscript in detail. In this document, I am providing some general comments, with more specific comments in the PDF of the article and supplement which I upload with this review.
With this contribution, the authors set out on an ambitious mission to not only assess the material flows from various waste products in China in the future (up to 2050), but they also purport to compare the supply potential for different metals and other materials from these waste streams to the total raw materials demand of China. They conclude in the abstract, with their own words that: "All the obtained results demonstrate that anthropogenic material supply can become the dominant source to meet China's mineral demand around 2050." (lines 12 -14) While the general subject of this manuscript is certainly interesting, it is not suitable for publication in Nature Communications in its current state. Not only is the quality of the presentation considerably below the standard of the journal, but there are also substantial flaws in the analysis which mean that the conclusion I quoted from the abstract above is certainly not supported by the facts and analysis presented by the authors. I explain in more detail why this is below.
Style and quality of presentation While I understand that English is not the first language of the first author, I found this manuscript extremely difficult to read on account of the quality of its descriptions. Not only does it use excessive phraseology which renders some sentences virtually unintelligible, but there are also logical gaps and wrongly used terminology that make the reasoning of the authors hard to follow (e.g. lines 41 to 43). As another example of this I would like to use the term "stocks" which is generally taken mean a cumulative quantity. However, the authors use it to mean annual quantities e.g. of waste generated. I only realized this towards the end of the manuscript and got very confused when trying to make sense of figures 2 and 3. I could quote more examples. I am actually surprised that such large deficiencies have not been corrected by the second author, whose English language skills I would have expected to be much better, given that he has held teaching positions at academic institutions in both Australia and the US. Another problem is that figures are not well designed and labelled. For instance, Fig. 2a -e and 2f essentially represent the same information in different ways. It would have been better to just use the more compact of these representations. This will also reduce print space. As it is, there is unnecessary redundancy that does not provide any significant gain in information.
Furthermore, the text contains several statements that are simply factually wrong, e.g. that China is largely reliant on imported raw materials (lines 40 and 280/281). Quick reference to the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries will show that in fact, China is the main producer of many primary metals (Zn, Pb, Ga, Ge, In, Sb, REEs etc.). Another such statement is that recycling is generally cheaper and "better" source for ALL metals than mining (lines 277 / 278). This is similarly untrue. It depends very much on the metal in question. See Reuter et al. (2011) and Allwood (2014). For instance, Al cannot currently be recycled to yield the same material quality as primary Al. Indium is too greatly dispersed in its major applications to warrant recycling. Extraction from primary sources (zinc ores) is cheaper.

Methodology and soundness of analysis
While none of the deficiencies listed above would never have led me to reject this manuscript had the authors' analysis been sound, this does, unfortunately, also contain some major deficiencies as indicated above. I will start with the most important problem. The authors make a statement about the potential importance of secondary resources to supply the needs of China in 2050. It is also implicit in the manuscript's title. I would have expected such a strong statement to be supported by a similarly strong analysis of BOTH the expected quantity of waste materials and metals contained within them (as well as estimates of recoverable quantities) AND the expected demand from the Chinese economy. However, the authors only provide a very simplistic analysis of the expected amounts of waste materials, and do not at all consider the demand side anywhere. It is never mentioned. This fact alone invalidates both the title and the supposed major conclusion of this manuscript.
Nevertheless, a proper quantitative analysis of waste streams and their probable evolution could still have been valuable in its own regard. However, this is not what the authors purportedly set out to represent, nor is their current analysis without flaws. My major points of criticism in this regard center on: 1) extremely simplistic forecasting of waste flows, and 2) insufficient analysis of uncertainties.
Forecasting. To assess the amounts of materials ending up as waste, the authors use a combination of production statistics for the products they investigated (from 2003 -2013) and their extrapolation into the future in combination with a probabilistic description of likely product lifetimes. My problem here mainly concerns the extrapolation into the future. Based on mostly linear but also sometimes exponential fits (not clear, why two methods are used, and what the justification is in specific cases) to the 11 years or so for which they have data, they simply extrapolate 35 years into the future (!). This is extremely naïve. Not only is not clear that linear growth is a good representation of the likely future development for different product categories, particularly those showing a decrease in production volume over the time-span considered (they would for several products end up negative). But it is also questionable that these trends are robust over a time span that is more than THREE TIMES the range spanned by the input data. Which brings me to the next point: uncertainty analysis.
Uncertainty analysis. While the authors supposedly include a very crude uncertainty analysis, they show corresponding confidence intervals in none of their figures. I would have expected to see these, using the standard 95% reporting method. Furthermore, the authors only consider one major source of uncertainty -the composition of waste materials. However, they ignore an even more substantial one: the very large uncertainties that will result from their forecasting methods. All of their fits to production data will have uncertainties. The further these trends are extrapolated into the future, the larger these uncertainties become. Given the large degree of extrapolation, it is likely that by 2050 these uncertainties will be so large that definitive statements on available amounts to within a factor 2 or less will be nearly impossible. This needs to be considered.

Results and conclusions
Given the many reservations I have already voiced above, I do not think it is sensible to comment in detail on these sections. They will at any rate require a complete rewriting to account for the changes made elsewhere in the manuscript to address my recommendations (below).

Suggestions for improvement
Following on from my comments above, I have two major suggestions for improvement. First, I suggest the authors rethink the purpose of this publication. With their current analysis, neither title nor major conclusion are justified. If they wish to make these conclusions, they also need to include an assessment of the demand side for China up to 2050. It may be easier to just focus on supply.
Second, I suggest the authors incorporate the fitting uncertainty of their linear (and other) regression analysis into their uncertainty assessment. I encourage them to try out different functional forms. I expect they will be surprised at how large these uncertainties become decades into the future. Third, I suggest the authors give the revised text that incorporates the changes suggested above a complete overhaul to improve the quality and style of their language, and ensure a concise and coherent presentation, ideally with the help of a native speaker or a professional language editing service. This should ensure that the manuscript meets the quality requirements of the journal and is easier on readers.

References cited
Allwood JM (2014) Squaring the circular economy: The role of recycling within a hierarchy of material management strategies. In: Worrell E, Reuter M (Eds) Handbook of Recycling, Elsevier, Amsterdam-New York-London.
Reuter MA (2011) Limits of design for recycling and "sustainability": A review. Waste Biomass Valor 2:183-208. This paper develops a material flow model to estimate the accumulation of key metals and materials in Chinese waste flows and then compares these to estimates of materials demand. The topics covered by this paper are extremely important and would influence thinking in the field. The scope of the analysis described here is novel.
First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors on the bold scope for this important work. The problem you have tackled is important and the results that derive from your analyses are interesting. I would suggest that the authors address the following issues to create an excellent manuscript.
Response: Thanks for your valuable comments and careful suggestions. All the suggestions have been fully considered to improve the article.
1) The English in this manuscript is challenging throughout. I make this comment in humble recognition that I myself cannot write a single word in Chinese or any other language for that matter.
Nevertheless, English is the language required by this journal and as such this will need to be addressed. An example of this include a. (lines 36-38) "Historically, the called "Four Big Items" is the fashionable aspiration for products (see Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 in Supplementary information), and its rapid evolution since 1970s has revealed the technological progress and the economic growth." This sentence is structured awkwardly and as such does not contribute to the narrative.
Response: Thanks. We rewrote some sentences again and found the native English speaker to polish the language. Please check up the revised article.
3. 2) Methods: My most fundamental concern with the work as it is framed currently is that it seems to imply conclusions that are more wide-ranging than the analysis would support. As I understand the analysis, it includes the material flows from three product categories: end-of-life electronics, end-of-life vehicles, and waste wire & cable. These are then discussed as if they represent the only (or at least the major) relevant sources and consumers of the materials studied. There are clearly other relevant classes of products for both overall materials flows (probably the most notable one being buildings and other forms of construction) and for specific materials that are analyzed in this paper (e.g., wind turbine installations for REEs).
Response: Many thanks for your nice concern on the scope. High-tech products are not only the core driver of economic growth, but also the major carrier of resource consumption and environmental pollution (direct or indirect). Their rapid popularity in recent decades and hopefully in the coming years are depleting the primary mineral resources, in particular for the strategic (or critical raw) materials. They are finally sinking in anthropogenic mineral (or urban mineral), which is regarded as one of the fastest-growing solid waste stream. In China, the government body, National Development and Reform Commission in 2010 proposed a distinct concept of anthropogenic mineral defined as the recycled iron, non-ferrous metals, precious metals, plastic, or rubber material lain in three large groups of waste products such as electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), vehicles, and wires and cables, generated at the duration of industrialization and urbanization. Although there are somewhat different types of anthropogenic mineral among the world, the three types, WEEE, ELV, and WWC, are the main and common core of anthropogenic mineral as the most typical resource-contained waste. Other waste like construction & demotion waste, municipal waste, and landfilled waste will be not considered. Basically, solid waste can be classified as the resource-contained waste (e.g., WEEE, ELV, metal scrap) and the environmental-risk waste (e.g., fly ash and municipal solid waste).
This study only considers the resource-contained waste, which can provide the increasing potential of resource supply. … However, the shortening useful life expectancy of the product, driven by rapid innovation, miniaturization and affordability, and an increasingly anthropogenic metabolism have led to a major increase in the accumulation of waste products, which could potentially be a secondary resource (Terminologies definition and boundaries are available in Supplementary Information Section 1). 3,5 The scope of such anthropogenic sources is strictly regulated by the Chinese government and comprises recycled iron, non-ferrous metals, precious metals, plastic, or rubber material embedded in three groups of waste products such as electrical and electronic equipment (EEE, all the abbreviations and acronyms are provided at Supplementary Information Section 2), vehicles, and wires and cables, generated during the industrialization and urbanization. 6, 7 These three groups of waste products are identified as the core anthropogenic mineral types not only in China, but also in many industrial nations. 8,9,10,11 Intrinsically, anthropogenic minerals are secondary resources that have already been crafted with specific human activities in their design and thus comprise an optimal mix of functional minerals in their supply chain. 7 Critical raw materials have also been sinking into this supply source, which is accelerating the depletion of virginal resources and frustrating the sustainable development of the manufacturing industry. 12,13,14,15 4. I would contrast this scope of analysis with the current title of the paper "Anthropogenic mineral supply has potential to meet Chinese resource demand by 2050" and the second to last sentence of the abstract "All the obtained results demonstrate that anthropogenic material supply can become the dominant source to meet China's mineral demand around 2050." Both of these appear to be all-encompassing conclusions, while the actual analysis is clearly bounded.

Response:
We added new session to examine the meeting potential for demand. Meanwhile, we polished carefully the logic of text and paragraph in Introduction and Discussion session to well support the title and abstract. Please check up. Here are some typical revisions.

…
EEEs and vehicles are the most fashionable aspiration of assets in Chinese households, which are the hallmark of the once-called "Four Big Items" that consumers are aspiring towards (see Supplementary Figs. 3 and 4). Their rapid evolution and popularity since 1970s could reveal a dramatic rise in waste generation and resource consumption. The consumption of a couple of mineral resources has gone through multiple increases 20 , resulting in a shortage of some important strategic resources and a growth of external dependence. 21,22,23 To meet the future resource demand, resources mining from anthropogenic mineral has become a world concern at the context of circular economy. … Therefore, we seek to uncover the mechanism of urban metabolism for e-waste, ELV, and WWC, comprehensively discover the recycling potential of anthropogenic mineral, and demonstrate their potential to meet future resource demand. To complete this study, four pathways are employed: data collection for the consumption, importation, exportation, and material composition of anthropogenic supply; method development based on material flow analysis and urban metabolism; demand estimation for anthropogenic mineral quantity, and resultant economic potential; and validation of results using comparison with previous studies or reported data, sensitivity analysis, and uncertainty analysis (Supplementary Figs. 5 & 7). … Meeting potential of anthropogenic mineral supply for resource demand. The future demand of product is theoretically equal to net addition to in-use stock, which is the difference between the consumption and the generated anthropogenic mineral (Eq. 7 and Supplementary Fig. 2). All the relevant materials are also chosen to uncover the future resource demand. Cu, Al, Au, and Pd will maintain the growth until 2030 and afterwards reach the constant (Fig. 4) 5. I recognize that comprehensive scope in an analysis like this is not possible and that interesting conclusions are possible from the scope that is presented. As such, I would recommend a. Explain why these product flows (EEE, ELV, and WWC -I will call them focal products) were selected for analysis. Probably ready access to data, but this should be made explicit.
b. Select materials (I will call them focal materials) that are interesting to you and where you can make a reasonable case that flows associated with the focal products represent a majority of the flow of the focal materials. A clear example of this would be Pd. Auto catalysts dominate Pd uses. Therefore, modeling Pd flows from ELVs provides good insight into balance between Pd demand and its secondary supply. A clear example of a concerning example would be Fe. I don't believe that you are tracking supply or demand from building construction. Without this, it seems difficult to comment on the annual net addition to in-use stock for Fe. c. Comment on flows NOT associated with the focal products. I fully recognize that modeling other product flows is not likely to be possible. Nevertheless, you should try to comment on what fraction of total material flow is associated with the focal products and be explicit that you are assuming that patterns in non-focal products will be similar to those in the focal products. Finally, you should flag any product/material flow patterns which would likely not mimic the focal product. An example here might be dental applications of Pd which might be considered as dissipative.
d. Focus your analysis and conclusion on the focal materials. You should certainly comment on other materials, but the materials for which you can reach the strongest conclusions are those where you are modeling the majority of their flow.
Response: Many thanks for your nice understanding and recommendations.
a. This reason has been addressed above from the regulated concept of anthropogenic mineral and given in detail in the introduction session. b. We try to draw all the relevant materials encapsulated in anthropogenic mineral, including the basic materials (like Cu, Fe, and Plastic), precious metals (like Au, Ag, and Pd), and strategic materials (like In, Ga, and rare earth). The highly valuable and critical materials are paid a more concern in the high-tech products. Previous studies indicate that Au, Pd, and In are the most typical to maintain the balance between the secondary supply and their industry demands. Regarding the in-use stock, only the three large groups and thirty products are concerned, not covering the building construction. Therefore, here Fe quantity of in-use stock is not so higher.
c. Please find the improved documents. d. Thanks. Main materials like copper, precious metals, and rare metals are focused. We expanded all the relevant materials to support the conclusion. 6. 3) METHODS: I believe that the reader would benefit from a more comprehensive statement of the equations that define your model. For example, in the results section you state "the annual net addition to in-use stock can be defined as the difference between annual net production and annual domestic anthropogenic mineral generation". There should be formulae (connected to the existing set of formulae) that map the currently defined variables to these final metrics.
a. The relationship between equation 4 (F(x) which would be unitless and range between 0 and 1) and equation 6 within which F(x) is listed as having units of tons is unclear.
Response: revised carefully, thanks! …Therefore, total weight of the anthropogenic mineral can be defined by where m is the assigned year    Response: thanks for your suggestions. The method choosing is basically relied upon the collected data. Supplementary Table 8 demonstrates previous applications of various methods for predicting anthropogenic mineral generation subject to the data availability. So it will be better to set data first and method following. But we will use the symbols by the article to label the data and results in Supplementary information. It will screw the whole article for easy reading and understanding. 5) RESULTS: In the section "Dynamic transfer map of valuable resources." It is unclear why you discuss net addition to in-use stock for only seven of the 21 materials that you were tracking.
Presumably this is because of your conclusion that they are the dominant value generators. If this is so, please make this explicit.
Response: All the materials are considered to illustrate the transfer to demand side. This section has been rewritten again to support the title and conclusion.
Meeting potential of anthropogenic mineral supply for resource demand. The future demand of product is theoretically equal to net addition to in-use stock, which is the difference between the consumption and the generated anthropogenic mineral (Eq. 7 and Supplementary Fig. 2). All the relevant materials are also chosen to uncover the future resource demand. Cu, Al, Au, and Pd will maintain the growth until 2030 and afterwards reach the constant (Fig. 4) 6) RESULTS: In the presentation of your results, it would be valuable to include a plot that shows the evolution of both the supply (annual domestic anthropogenic mineral generation) and the demand (annual net production) for at least one focal material, hopefully, putting these on the same plot. This would help readers to better visualize the definition of the annual net addition to in-use stock as the gap between these two quantities. I would also suggest calling out the definition of annual net addition in a formula. A formula in this context is needed not because the relationship is complex, but rather because it helps to make the definition of this key result stand out in the manuscript.
Response: Very nice suggestions. We choose eight focal material to illustrate the relationship between the supply and demand. One new session is added to consolidate the article.  Just to explain what I mean here, consider these points. In the way that this section is written up currently, it appears that Annual Net Addition to In-Use Stock is the ultimate metric used to support your conclusion. Presumably as that quantity goes to zero it implies that anthropogenic mineral generation is occurring at a rate comparable to the rate of production. If one looks naively at figure 4a, one might conclude that anthropogenic minerals are only going to be sufficient for Pb because it is the only one for which the result approaches zero.
Response: Thanks again for your care about the support to title and conclusion. To make it more logic and convincing, we add one new session subtitled Meeting potential of typical anthropogenic mineral material for resource demand (as given above). I think it could be smooth to support the title and conclusion. Additionally, we polish again the deep implications to reinforce the conclusion.
Please check them up. should also be considered alongside those risks for conventional primary mining.

Comment:
Dear editor and authors, I have now had time to read and consider this manuscript in detail. In this document, I am providing some general comments, with more specific comments in the PDF of the article and supplement which I upload with this review.
With this contribution, the authors set out on an ambitious mission to not only assess the material flows from various waste products in China in the future (up to 2050), but they also purport to compare the supply potential for different metals and other materials from these waste streams to the total raw materials demand of China. They conclude in the abstract, with their own words that: "All the obtained results demonstrate that anthropogenic material supply can become the dominant source to meet China's mineral demand around 2050." (lines 12 -14) While the general subject of this manuscript is certainly interesting, it is not suitable for publication in Nature Communications in its current state. Not only is the quality of the presentation considerably below the standard of the journal, but there are also substantial flaws in the analysis which mean that the conclusion I quoted from the abstract above is certainly not supported by the facts and analysis presented by the authors. I explain in more detail why this is below.
Response: Many thanks for your positive assessment and point-out flaws. We appreciated you for your valuable time input.
We understood well your meanings and suggestions. So we have replenished a great number of new data, added some paragraphs, and polished the logic to improve the article. We believe the new edition can answer the above questions.
The specific comments in the original PDF article have been responded in detail as the new annotation in the same document. We also upload it in the second submission. Please check up.

Comment:
Style and quality of presentation While I understand that English is not the first language of the first author, I found this manuscript extremely difficult to read on account of the quality of its descriptions. Not only does it use excessive phraseology which renders some sentences virtually unintelligible, but there are also logical gaps and wrongly used terminology that make the reasoning of the authors hard to follow (e.g. lines 41 to 43).
As another example of this I would like to use the term "stocks" which is generally taken mean a cumulative quantity. However, the authors use it to mean annual quantities e.g. of waste generated. I only realized this towards the end of the manuscript and got very confused when trying to make sense of figures 2 and 3. I could quote more examples. I am actually surprised that such large deficiencies have not been corrected by the second author, whose English language skills I would have expected to be much better, given that he has held teaching positions at academic institutions in both Australia and the US.
Response: Thanks again for your pointing-out. We have improved the sentences you highlighted. We also polished again all the texts with the language improvement. Meanwhile, a detailed terminologies definition and boundary, including anthropogenic mineral, stock, and in-use stock, is added in the supplementary text 2 to clarify the difference and boundary.  89.95, 92.98, 473.84, 2.98, and 6.96 tons, respectively in 2010, but they will grow roughly 15-, 19-, 14-, 8-, and 8-fold in 2050 (Fig. 2c (Fig. 2).

Supplementary Session 1: Terminologies definition and boundary
(1) Anthropogenic mineral, nature mineral, and solid waste (Supplementary Fig. 1) Anthropogenic mineral, or called urban mineral, belong to solid waste, is the recycled resources characterizing the product with the orderly physical structure and fixed shape under the condition of human activity.
Nature mineral is the underground solid resource generated by the naturally occurring process.
Solid waste is any garbage or refuse, sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities.
(2) New scrap and old scrap (Supplementary Fig. 1) New scrap is the solid waste generated from the manufacturing process.
Old scrap is the solid waste generated from end of life product after consumption or utilization, including the anthropogenic mineral.
(3) Primary resources and secondary resources (Supplementary Fig. 1) Primary resources called nature resources (mineral), are resources that exist without actions of humankind.
Secondary resources are the resources by anthropogenic activity, consisting of new scrap and old scrap.

Supplementary Fig. 1 Boundary of anthropogenic mineral, natural mineral, primary resources, secondary resources, solid waste, new scrap, and old scrap
(4) Product, resource, and material 1

Product is a good consisting of a bundle of tangible and intangible attributes that satisfies consumers.
Resource stands for the useful matters, consisting of valuable material.
Material is the element, constituent, or substance of which something is composed or can be made.

(5) Urban mining and virgin mining 2
Urban mining is the process recycling resources from anthropogenic mineral, consisting of dismantling, crushing, separation, and deep recovery using hydrometallurgy, pyrometallurgy, or biological treatment.
Virgin mining is the process to extract resources from natural mineral, consisting of crushing, separation, and deep recovery using hydrometallurgy, pyrometallurgy, or biological treatment.
(6) Flow, stock, in-use stock, and net addition to in-use stock (Supplementary Fig. 2

) 1, 3
A flow is the change of a stock over time. The yearly-generated anthropogenic mineral belongs to the flow.
A stock is the reservoir that is accumulated over time by inflows and/or depleted by outflows, which is the totally cumulative quantity.
In-use stock is the cumulative product or resource, which is used or consumed functionally.

Net addition to in-use stock in every year is the difference between the yearly-added consumption and
yearly-generated anthropogenic mineral.
Supplementary Fig. 2 Relationship among the production, consumption, and theoretical demand 3. Another problem is that figures are not well designed and labelled. For instance, Fig. 2a -e and 2f essentially represent the same information in different ways. It would have been better to just use the more compact of these representations. This will also reduce print space. As it is, there is unnecessary redundancy that does not provide any significant gain in information. should also be considered alongside those risks for conventional primary mining.

Methodology and soundness of analysis
While none of the deficiencies listed above would never have led me to reject this manuscript had the authors' analysis been sound, this does, unfortunately, also contain some major deficiencies as indicated above. I will start with the most important problem. The authors make a statement about the potential importance of secondary resources to supply the needs of China in 2050. It is also implicit in the manuscript's title. I would have expected such a strong statement to be supported by a similarly strong analysis of BOTH the expected quantity of waste materials and metals contained within them (as well as estimates of recoverable quantities) AND the expected demand from the Chinese economy. However, the authors only provide a very simplistic analysis of the expected amounts of waste materials, and do not at all consider the demand side anywhere. It is never mentioned. This fact alone invalidates both the title and the supposed major conclusion of this manuscript.
Response: Thanks. We have realized this important problem as indicated by the first reviewer. The title, methods, demand estimation, and meeting potential of anthropogenic have been improved to well support the title and conclusion.

Anthropogenic mineral supply has potential to meet Chinese resource demand
Abstract: An increasingly large quantity of primary mineral resources is being converted into manufactured products and destined in solid waste, which is progressively identified as anthropogenic mineral for potential resource supply. This trend will witness a dramatic shift in China due to a range of policy interventions. China is not only the major producer of consumer products and importer of secondary resource, but also has a major urban footprint. Here we consider three product groups, 30 products, and imports, and map the recycling potential of

……
Meeting potential of anthropogenic mineral supply for resource demand. The future demand of product is theoretically equal to net addition to in-use stock, which is the difference between the consumption and the generated anthropogenic mineral (Eq. 7). All the relevant materials are also chosen to uncover the future resource demand. Cu, Al, Au, and Pd will maintain the growth until 2030 and afterwards reach the constant (Fig. 4)  We further uncover the supply potential of anthropogenic minerals. With the dramatic rise of anthropogenic reserve and the gradual saturation of material demand, the fully supply from anthropogenic mineral for the resource demand is becoming possible (Fig. 4). showing a decrease in production volume over the time-span considered (they would for several products end up negative). But it is also questionable that these trends are robust over a time span that is more than THREE TIMES the range spanned by the input data. Which brings me to the next point: uncertainty analysis.
Response: Thanks for your pointing-out again. We have carefully revised these questions from the methods to results and logic.
7. Uncertainty analysis. While the authors supposedly include a very crude uncertainty analysis, they show corresponding confidence intervals in none of their figures. I would have expected to see these, using the standard 95% reporting method. Furthermore, the authors only consider one major source of uncertainty -the composition of waste materials. However, they ignore an even more substantial one: the very large uncertainties that will result from their forecasting methods. All of their fits to production data will have uncertainties. The further these trends are extrapolated into the future, the larger these uncertainties become. Given the large degree of extrapolation, it is likely that by 2050 these uncertainties will be so large that definitive statements on available amounts to within a factor 2 or less will be nearly impossible. This needs to be considered.
Response: Good questions. Yes, uncertainty is caused by not only from the data, but also from the method. Regarding the prediction method, we add one paragraph to address how and why for the data regression. In the revised article, uncertainty for data is realized with Monte Carol simulation, and uncertainty for method is given with the error or range of the prediction data.  table and Table 13). Accordingly, domestic generation of WEEE, ELV, and WWC are uncovered (Fig. 1a and Supplementary Fig. 13)…

Results and conclusions
Given the many reservations I have already voiced above, I do not think it is sensible to comment in detail on these sections. They will at any rate require a complete rewriting to account for the changes made elsewhere in the manuscript to address my recommendations (below).

Response:
We rewrote the results and conclusions to describe all the obtained results. Please check up the new edition.

Suggestions for improvement
Following on from my comments above, I have two major suggestions for improvement. First, I suggest the authors rethink the purpose of this publication. With their current analysis, neither title nor major conclusion are justified. If they wish to make these conclusions, they also need to include an assessment of the demand side for China up to 2050. It may be easier to just focus on supply.
Second, I suggest the authors incorporate the fitting uncertainty of their linear (and other) regression analysis into their uncertainty assessment. I encourage them to try out different functional forms. I expect they will be surprised at how large these uncertainties become decades into the future.
Third, I suggest the authors give the revised text that incorporates the changes suggested above a complete overhaul to improve the quality and style of their language, and ensure a concise and coherent presentation, ideally with the help of a native speaker or a professional language editing service. This should ensure that the manuscript meets the quality requirements of the journal and is easier on readers.

Response:
We read these two references and put the idea into the revised article.

Other information and data have been updated and improved, please find the full manuscript. MANY THANKS for your valuable comments and suggestions!
Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): **General Comments This revision has made important improvements in language, clarity of presentation, and rationalization of the scope and conclusions. Now that clarity is improved it is easier to isolate a few topic whose ambiguity would likely generate confusion to the reader. As such, I believe further revision is warranted to ensure that readers clearly understand your findings. In particular, you need to 1) Provide a clear definition of anthropogenic minerals and stick with that term throughout 2) Make it clear that the scope of demand that you are attempting to satisfy comprises the same products that are found within the anthropogenic mineral 3) Check your use of the word demand through the manuscript 4) Check your definition of the meeting ratio I encourage you to put in the effort to address these issues.
**Terminology around anthropogenic materials and its associated products ***Definition of anthropogenic minerals In your rebuttal you indicate that the term "anthropogenic mineral" has a fixed definition in China and you imply that this scope is what you mean when you use that term in the manuscript. (from the rebuttal) "In China, the government body, National Development and Reform Commission in 2010 proposed a distinct concept of anthropogenic mineral defined as the recycled iron, non-ferrous metals, precious metals, plastic, or rubber material lain in three large groups of waste products such as electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), vehicles, and wires and cables," Some changes will need to be made to establish that formality in the manuscript itself. Consider this example: On the first page, you use the term "anthropogenic sources" but then follow it with a definition that is reminiscent of the one you provide in the rebuttal document.
If you are going to define "anthropogenic mineral" as a formal concept, then you need to use that term consistently.
To begin this process, I would recommend that these sentences "29 …The scope of such anthropogenic sources is strictly regulated by the Chinese government and comprises recycled iron, non-ferrous metals, precious metals, plastic, or rubber material embedded in three groups of waste products such as electrical and electronic equipment (EEE, all the abbreviations and acronyms are provided at Supplementary Information Section 2), vehicles, and wires and cables," be changed to "One such waste stream is strictly regulated by the Chinese government. It is referred to as "anthropogenic mineral" (AM) and was defined by the National Development and Reform Commission in 2010 to comprise the iron, non-ferrous metals, precious metals, plastic, or rubber material found within three waste products: electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), vehicles, and wires and cables." ***Scope of the products whose consumption needs are met by AM This ambiguity of terminology follows you into the discussion of your results. In particular, I believe that readers will be confused about the scope of what consumption you are comparing to your AM supply.
Consider for example the text in lines 308-312 "We further uncover the supply potential of anthropogenic minerals. With the dramatic rise of anthropogenic reserve and the gradual saturation of material demand, the fully supply from anthropogenic mineral for the resource demand is becoming possible (Fig. 4). Eighteen materials of anthropogenic reserve could meet their demand before 2020, and in 2050 they hopefully provide over two-folder demand." I believe that a reader could easily interpret these sentences to mean that AM could satisfy consumption for all sectors for selected materials within AM. I am fairly confident that is not what you mean here. Instead I believe that you mean that resources with AM could satisfy consumption of selected materials in EEE, vehicles, and wire and cable -only. This is an interesting conclusion, but its scope should be made clear.
Consider this also for the title of the article "Anthropogenic mineral supply has potential to meet Chinese resource demand". I believe that you mean it has the potential to meet demand for electronics, vehicles, and wire and cable. I would be valuable to come up with a concise way that would make that more clear.

**Consumption, Demand and the Meeting Ratio
I am concerned about the consistency of the use of the term demand and more broadly about its specific definition in the manuscript. Consider this example from Lines 283-285 "The future demand of product is theoretically equal to net addition to in-use stock, which is the difference between the consumption and the generated anthropogenic mineral " This sentence well captures a challenge in communicating your work. Through examination of supplementary figure 2, it appears that you are defining demand to be the difference between consumption and AM generation. Essentially, it is the quantity of material that must be supplied by something other than waste to satisfy consumption. Assuming that I am understanding that correctly, in my opinion, the use of demand in this way is confusing. I realize that notionally you can define a term and use it in your paper. However, when words are used differently outside of your paper, this practice can easily lead to confusion.
Colloquially and even within much of the academic community (the notable exceptions being economics and electricity power networks), the two terms demand and consumption are often treated as synonyms. Within the economics community, demand is something that cannot be directly observed but reflects an individual or groups preference for some good (generically referred to as some utility) at a set of prices. In that same field, consumption is that action that is actually observed.
I believe that your use of consumption here is sound. I would recommend however selecting another word than demand. Maybe give it a clearly technical name "waste resource shortfall" (WRS) so that readers no that they need to examine how this is being defined in this case. Maybe the simplest option would be to continue to refer to it as the net addition to stocks and not relabel it as demand.
This leads me to back up and ask about why define the meeting ratio or at least why define it as it is. It would seem simpler to track either S (equation 9) and follow when it goes to zero or to define the meeting ratio as D or W divided by C.
I simply don't follow the logic of the meeting ratio being W / (C-D). You define W to be "weight of jth resource in the yearly-generated anthropogenic mineral at the year of m (in ton), which indicates the supply potential of anthropogenic mineral;" This seems quite reasonable. But you define S to be "total weight of jth resource in the yearly-added consumption at the year of m" Comparing these two doesn't make sense to me. Why compare the total generated waste to the "added" consumption. Should we compare total generation to total consumption? This brings me back to the results plotted in Figure 4. Is this resource demand the same as the demand you defined on lines 283-285? There is (and in supplementary figure 2) it is defined as equal to net additions to stock. If net additions to stock stay flat and positive (e.g., figure 4c), wouldn't this by definition mean that you are not able to meet all of consumption with the AM? Please clarify this. More to the point, any quantity that is plotted in figure 4 should be able to be matched with one of the equations 5 to 10 and should use the same label.
**Specific comments Lines 59 -61 "Since waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE or e-waste), end-of-life vehicle (ELV), and waste wiring and cable (WWC) can mainly constitute an anthropogenic mineral" What does it mean "can mainly constitute"? Are there other things in AM?
Lines 115-116 "China's anthropogenic mineral can be sourced both to domestically consumed products and imported waste" I think that you mean "China's AM can derive from both domestically consumed products and imported waste" Lines 226 -229 "Totally, the weight of the yearly-generated anthropogenic mineral generation in China was estimated for 40 Mt in 2010. Driven by the large expansion of WEEE, ELV, and WWC, total generation weight will reach 71 Mt in 2020, 101 Mt in 2030, and 176 Mt in 2050 (Fig. 1d). The average annual amount in 2010-2050 will be 3.4 Mt, and over one half will be provided by ELV" The first half of this paragraph is confusing. You note yearly-generated AM is 40Mt in 2010 and this figure grows dramatically to 176Mt by 2050. What then is the "average annual amount in 2010-2050". It can't be the average yearly-generated AM, because even the lowest year (2010) is well above this average.

Randolph Kirchain kirchain@Mit.edu
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author): Having read the revised version of the manuscript, I have the following further comments, compared to my last review: 1) Language quality has been improved but is still not up to the standard of the journal.
2) The authors now include estimates of future demand in Fig. 4 and compare them with anthropogenic reserves. Purportedly, this supports their conclusion that anthropogenic materials will be sufficient to cover demand. However, this is not what the comparison shows. Reserves are a cumulative quantity, while demand is a rate. What needs to be compared here are the rate of waste generation and demand. I expect they will not be equal for a long time, particularly under scenarios of increasing demand (which would necessarily accompany increased consumption and increased future waste generation). Furthermore -not all of the material contained in the waste will be recoverable. This is, however, another implicit assumption the authors make without much further discussion. It is unrealistic, particularly for elements like In, Ge, Pt etc. that are highly dispersed in industrial products, and may even be lost in use (Pt).
I would therefore contend that the major conclusion of the paper is still not supported by the authors' analysis, and does in fact remain untenable. The quality of the presentation is also still not up to standard and difficult to follow. Fig. 4, for instance is extremely difficult to read, since there is no indication in the panels themselves, of which element they specifically refer to.
Hence, I must uphold my recommendation from last time, that this manuscript still requires major revisions.

**General Comments
This revision has made important improvements in language, clarity of presentation, and rationalization of the scope and conclusions. Now that clarity is improved it is easier to isolate a few topic whose ambiguity would likely generate confusion to the reader. As such, I believe further revision is warranted to ensure that readers clearly understand your findings. In particular, you need to 1) Provide a clear definition of anthropogenic minerals and stick with that term throughout 2) Make it clear that the scope of demand that you are attempting to satisfy comprises the same products that are found within the anthropogenic mineral 3) Check your use of the word demand through the manuscript 4) Check your definition of the meeting ratio I encourage you to put in the effort to address these issues.
Response: Many thanks again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions. All the suggestions have been fully considered to improve the article.

1) In the newly revised article, a clear definition of anthropogenic minerals has been given and the
term is used consistently through the full article. please check it up.
2) We improve the address about the scope of anthropogenic mineral.
3) The word demand has been checked through the article.
4) The definition of meeting ratio has been checked.
2. **Terminology around anthropogenic materials and its associated products ***Definition of anthropogenic minerals In your rebuttal you indicate that the term "anthropogenic mineral" has a fixed definition in China and you imply that this scope is what you mean when you use that term in the manuscript. (from the rebuttal) "In China, the government body, National Development and Reform Commission in 2010 proposed a distinct concept of anthropogenic mineral defined as the recycled iron, non-ferrous metals, precious metals, plastic, or rubber material lain in three large groups of waste products such as electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), vehicles, and wires and cables," Some changes will need to be made to establish that formality in the manuscript itself. Consider this example: On the first page, you use the term "anthropogenic sources" but then follow it with a definition that is reminiscent of the one you provide in the rebuttal document.
If you are going to define "anthropogenic mineral" as a formal concept, then you need to use that term consistently.
To begin this process, I would recommend that these sentences " 29 …The scope of such anthropogenic sources is strictly regulated by the Chinese government and comprises recycled iron, non-ferrous metals, precious metals, plastic, or rubber material embedded in three groups of waste products such as electrical and electronic equipment (EEE, all the abbreviations and acronyms are provided at Supplementary Information Section 2), vehicles, and wires and cables," be changed to "One such waste stream is strictly regulated by the Chinese government. It is referred to as "anthropogenic mineral" (AM) and was defined by the National Development and Reform Commission in 2010 to comprise the iron, non-ferrous metals, precious metals, plastic, or rubber material found within three waste products: electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), vehicles, and wires and cables." Response: Many thanks for nice recommendation. We agreed. These sentences have been improved to clarify the terminology and definition of anthropogenic mineral.  Supplementary Information Section 2), vehicle, and wire & cable. 6,7 These are identified as the core scope of AM not only in China, but also in many industrial nations. 8,9,10,11 Critical raw materials have also been sinking into AM reserves, while accelerating the depletion of virginal minerals. 12,13,14,15 On the other hand, China is not only the world's major manufacturing power, but also one of the largest consumers and exporter of products. 16  3. ***Scope of the products whose consumption needs are met by AM This ambiguity of terminology follows you into the discussion of your results. In particular, I believe that readers will be confused about the scope of what consumption you are comparing to your AM supply.
Consider for example the text in lines 308-312 "We further uncover the supply potential of anthropogenic minerals. With the dramatic rise of anthropogenic reserve and the gradual saturation of material demand, the fully supply from anthropogenic mineral for the resource demand is becoming possible (Fig. 4). Eighteen materials of anthropogenic reserve could meet their demand before 2020, and in 2050 they hopefully provide over two-folder demand." I believe that a reader could easily interpret these sentences to mean that AM could satisfy consumption for all sectors for selected materials within AM. I am fairly confident that is not what you mean here.
Instead I believe that you mean that resources with AM could satisfy consumption of selected materials in EEE, vehicles, and wire and cable -only. This is an interesting conclusion, but its scope should be made clear.
Consider this also for the title of the article "Anthropogenic mineral supply has potential to meet Chinese resource demand". I believe that you mean it has the potential to meet demand for electronics, vehicles, and wire and cable. I would be valuable to come up with a concise way that would make that more clear.

Response:
Many thanks again. Your understanding is right. We clarify some sentences from title, abstract and the equation to a couple of texts. Please check them up.

Anthropogenic mineral supply through a circular economy approach has potential to meet Chinese resource consumption
Abstract: An increasingly large quantity of primary mineral resource is being converted into manufactured products and destined for solid waste disposal. This material can be reclassified as "anthropogenic mineral reserves" and be a potential source of metals for a range of manufacturing uses. China is implementing a range of policy interventions which can lead to such a classification that will raise the profile of recycling programs as a means of metal supply. China is not only a major producer of consumer products and importer of secondary metals, but also has a major urban infrastructure footprint. Here we consider three product groups, 30 products, and imports, … and M is defined as the meeting ratio of AM supply for the resource demand from the three product groups (%).

Meeting potential of AM supply for future resource consumption of three product groups. The future
consumption of product is theoretically equal to net addition to in-use stock, which is the difference between the demand and the generated AM (Eq. 7 and Supplementary Fig. 2). All the relevant materials are also chosen to uncover the future resource consumption imposed by EEE, vehicle, and wire & cable. Cu, Al, Au, and Pd will maintain the growth until 2030 and afterwards reach the constant (Fig.   4) Mt in 2010-2050 while the falling importation and the increasing production will mingle together.

…
We further uncover the supply potential of AMs. With the dramatic rise of AM generation and the gradual saturation of material consumption, the potential supply from AM is becoming possible to overtake the resource consumption of three product groups (Fig. 4). Although we are currently still far from a closed-loop society owing to low recycling rate 72 , a rapid advancement is indeed arising for regulation, policy, and technology of circular economy and urban mining. The highly-efficient collection and the cutting-edge recycling will significantly enhance the recycling rate in the future.
Thus, if substantial recycling, eighteen materials of AM could meet their demand before 2020, and in 2050 they probably provide over two-folder consumption. The meeting time of Sn and Pd will be approximately 2030 and 2041, respectively. Although Cu, Al, and Co of AM cannot meet their potential consumption by 2050, the disparity gap between their consumption and AMs will be greatly reduced in the following decades. Consequently, AM supply has a growing potential to meet their future resource consumption.

**Consumption, Demand and the Meeting Ratio
I am concerned about the consistency of the use of the term demand and more broadly about its specific definition in the manuscript. Consider this example from Lines 283-285 "The future demand of product is theoretically equal to net addition to in-use stock, which is the difference between the consumption and the generated anthropogenic mineral " This sentence well captures a challenge in communicating your work. Through examination of supplementary figure 2, it appears that you are defining demand to be the difference between consumption and AM generation. Essentially, it is the quantity of material that must be supplied by something other than waste to satisfy consumption. Assuming that I am understanding that correctly, in my opinion, the use of demand in this way is confusing. I realize that notionally you can define a term and use it in your paper. However, when words are used differently outside of your paper, this practice can easily lead to confusion.
Colloquially and even within much of the academic community (the notable exceptions being economics and electricity power networks), the two terms demand and consumption are often treated as synonyms. Within the economics community, demand is something that cannot be directly observed but reflects an individual or groups preference for some good (generically referred to as some utility) at a set of prices. In that same field, consumption is that action that is actually observed.
I believe that your use of consumption here is sound. I would recommend however selecting another word than demand. Maybe give it a clearly technical name "waste resource shortfall" (WRS) so that readers no that they need to examine how this is being defined in this case. Maybe the simplest option would be to continue to refer to it as the net addition to stocks and not relabel it as demand.
This leads me to back up and ask about why define the meeting ratio or at least why define it as it is.
It would seem simpler to track either S (equation 9) and follow when it goes to zero or to define the meeting ratio as D or W divided by C.
I simply don't follow the logic of the meeting ratio being W / (C-D). You define W to be "weight of jth resource in the yearly-generated anthropogenic mineral at the year of m (in ton), which indicates the supply potential of anthropogenic mineral;" This seems quite reasonable. But you define S to be "total weight of jth resource in the yearly-added consumption at the year of m" Comparing these two doesn't make sense to me. Why compare the total generated waste to the "added" consumption. Should we compare total generation to total consumption? This brings me back to the results plotted in Figure 4. Is this resource demand the same as the demand you defined on lines 283-285? There is (and in supplementary figure 2) it is defined as equal to net additions to stock. If net additions to stock stay flat and positive (e.g., figure 4c), wouldn't this by definition mean that you are not able to meet all of consumption with the AM? Please clarify this. More to the point, any quantity that is plotted in figure 4 should be able to be matched with one of the equations 5 to 10 and should use the same label.  The use of consumption is indeed better than the demand so that 'demand' is replaced by 'consumption' in the revised article.

 Demand amount (D') -AM amount (D) = Actual consumption/using amount (C)
 Meeting ratio 100% 100%  Yearly-generated total AM amount should be compared to yearly consumption amount, not yearly-added consumption amount.
Therefore, we revised all the relevant texts from the title, equation, tables, and figures, to sentences.

Anthropogenic mineral supply through a circular economy approach has potential to meet Chinese resource consumption
Abstract: An increasingly large quantity of primary mineral resource is being converted into manufactured products and destined for solid waste disposal. This material can be reclassified as "anthropogenic mineral reserves" and be a potential source of metals for a range of manufacturing uses. China is implementing a range of policy interventions which can lead to such a classification that will raise the profile of recycling programs as a means of metal supply. China is not only a major producer of consumer products and importer of secondary metals, but also has a major urban infrastructure footprint. Here we consider three product groups, 30 products, and imports, and map … Data regression. We chose a stock-based model 50,51 to define the net production of EEE, vehicle, wiring and cable. The net production of any given products from Eq. 1 was assumed to be both consumed and discarded in China, and its future demand was then determined using a time-step method based on data regression. Ideally, the Logistic equation is the feasible to enable the forecasting future demand… 100 100 ' where m is the assigned year (2010-2050) for the concerned generation; i is the i th category of product; 31 is total estimated categories for EEE, vehicle, and wiring & cable; x 0 is the initial year of production (x 0 =1990 for EEEs, x 0 =1991 for vehicle, and x 0 =1996 for wiring & cable); D'(x) is the demand quantity of product flow from production, exportation,

and importation (in million or ton); C(x) is the theoretical consumption of product (in million or ton); w i is the weight of i th category of each product (in kg or ton); P(x) is the domestic production quantity (in million); E(x) is the exportation of product (in million); I(x) is the importation of product (in million)
; j is the j th resource category; c ij is the content of the j th resource in the i th category of products; W m,j is the total weight of j th resource in the yearly-generated AM at the year of m (in ton), which indicates the supply potential of AM; C m,j is the total weight of j th resource in the consumption at the year of m (in ton), and M is defined as the meeting ratio of a certain resource supply from AM to the resource consumption from the three product groups (%).

**Specific comments
Lines 59 -61 "Since waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE or e-waste), end-of-life vehicle (ELV), and waste wiring and cable (WWC) can mainly constitute an anthropogenic mineral" What does it mean "can mainly constitute"? Are there other things in AM?

Response:
The scope of AM differs in many countries and regions. But WEEE, ELV, and WWC are main and common types of AM.
…"anthropogenic mineral" (AM, some relevant terminologies definition and boundaries are provided in Supplementary Information Section 1). 3,5 One such waste stream is strictly regulated by the Chinese

government. It is referred to as AM and was defined by the National Development and Reform
Commission in 2010 to comprise the iron, non-ferrous metals, precious metals, plastic, or rubber material found within three waste products: electrical and electronic equipment (EEE, all the abbreviations and acronyms are also provided at Supplementary Information Section 2), vehicle, and wire & cable. 6,7 These are identified as the core scope of AM not only in China, but also in many industrial nations. 8,9,10,11 6. Lines 115-116 "China's anthropogenic mineral can be sourced both to domestically consumed products and imported waste" I think that you mean "China's AM can derive from both domestically consumed products and imported waste" Response: Right, revised.

Lines 226 -229
"Totally, the weight of the yearly-generated anthropogenic mineral generation in China was estimated for 40 Mt in 2010. Driven by the large expansion of WEEE, ELV, and WWC, total generation weight will reach 71 Mt in 2020, 101 Mt in 2030, and 176 Mt in 2050 (Fig. 1d). The average annual amount in 2010-2050 will be 3.4 Mt, and over one half will be provided by ELV" The first half of this paragraph is confusing. You note yearly-generated AM is 40Mt in 2010 and this figure grows dramatically to 176Mt by 2050. What then is the "average annual amount in 2010-2050". It can't be the average yearly-generated AM, because even the lowest year (2010) is well above this average.
Response: thanks. The data of 3.4 Mt is the average increasing amount per year.
1. Having read the revised version of the manuscript, I have the following further comments, compared to my last review: 1) Language quality has been improved but is still not up to the standard of the journal.
Response: Many thanks for your positive assessment. The language has been checked and improved thoroughly.
2) The authors now include estimates of future demand in Fig. 4 and compare them with anthropogenic reserves. Purportedly, this supports their conclusion that anthropogenic materials will be sufficient to cover demand. However, this is not what the comparison shows. Reserves are a cumulative quantity, while demand is a rate. What needs to be compared here are the rate of waste generation and demand. I expect they will not be equal for a long time, particularly under scenarios of increasing demand (which would necessarily accompany increased consumption and increased future waste generation). Furthermore -not all of the material contained in the waste will be recoverable. This is, however, another implicit assumption the authors make without much further discussion. It is unrealistic, particularly for elements like In, Ge, Pt etc. that are highly dispersed in industrial products.
Response: Thanks again for your professional pointing-out. We agreed with you. Based on the equation 10, we revised "anthropogenic reserve" as "anthropogenic mineral" for potential supply of resource generated in each year. Figure 4 has been improved as well. Regarding the recycling rate, some sentences are added to discuss the evolution of recycling imposed by regulation, policy, and technology. We believe the current edition is more scientific and stricter than before. Please check them up. We further uncover the supply potential of AM. With the dramatic rise of AM generation and the gradual saturation of material consumption, the potential supply from AM is becoming possible to overtake the resource consumption of three product groups (Fig. 4)

Other information and data have been updated and improved, please find the full manuscript. MANY THANKS for your valuable comments and suggestions!
Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author): The authors have adequately addressed the points made by the reviewers at this stage of the revision. Therefore, the manuscript is adequate for publishing.
Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author): General Comment: The paper hardly a self-standing manuscript. Too much depended upon supplementary information. Some important information is presented in supplementary data and supporting data in the main manuscript and vice versa. Hence, there are the clear scope that reorganization of manuscript in better organized and precise (i) Not a well-organized and well-written article.
(ii) Inappropriate terminology used, example vehicle and ELV has been used alternatively.
(iii) Lots of scope for vocabulary (inadequate vocabulary) and organizational development, which cannot be managed by a professional English correction service.
(iv) The terminology used is inappropriate provoke question rather answers, like intertwined nexus among… etc.
(v) The introduction need to be rewritten precisely and clearly need to explain what is merit over this communication over existing literature. Advantages need to be explained explicitly and precisely.
(vi) Method: data mining methodology, data dependability need to be addressed. Like this, the review report can be extended to 4-5 pages. Hence, recommendation appended below.
Recommendation: The present manuscript should not be accepted for publication. A complete reorganization, re-writing followed by English vocabulary/grammar/typo correction is essential and recommended.
1. The authors have adequately addressed the points made by the reviewers at this stage of the revision. Therefore, the manuscript is adequate for publishing.
Response: Many thanks again for your positive decision. We acknowledge you with the very valuable previous comments.

General Comment:
The paper hardly a self-standing manuscript. Too much depended upon supplementary information. Some important information is presented in supplementary data and supporting data in the main manuscript and vice versa. Hence, there are the clear scope that reorganization of manuscript in better organized and precise (i) Not a well-organized and well-written article.
Response: Many thanks for your kind suggestions. All of them are considered in the revised article. 2. (ii) Inappropriate terminology used, example vehicle and ELV has been used alternatively.

Response:
The terminology is revised from the text to supplementary information. We checked through the article and polish them in a more consistent and accurate expression.

Supplementary Section 1: Terminologies definition and boundary
( China to uncover the potential of AM supply. 18,19 EEEs and vehicles are the most fashionable aspiration of assets in Chinese households, which are the hallmark of the "Four Big Items" that consumers are aspiring towards (see Supplementary Fig. 2). Their rapid evolution and popularity since the 1970s have led to a dramatic rise in waste accumulation and resource consumption. The consumption of some mineral resources has witnessed multiple increases 20 , resulting in a shortage of important strategic resources and a growth of external dependence. 21,22,23 To meet future resource consumption, mining from AM has become a global concern and raised the popularization of the concept of a "circular economy".  Fig. 1 and Supplementary Fig. 3).

(vi)
Method: data mining methodology, data dependability need to be addressed.
Response: Figure 1 is added to illustrate research methods. Data dependability is indicated in detail from Supplementary Tables 2-5.  Response: AM is generated with the material flow from consumption to obsolescence. Material flow analysis framework is the core philosophy to examine the AM generation. This philosophy has been adopted to define the mathematical models from equation (1) to equation (9).
7. (viii) Need to be discussed for better understanding.

Response:
The logic is polished and more information are added here for better understanding in a fruitful implications. Please check them up.
Three levels are enabled here for the deep discussion. Firstly, the detailed comparison indicated in Supplementary   Information Section 4 can verify the results mentioned above, and further consolidate the relevant results (Fig. 2).
Thus, China has already overtaken the U.S. to become the world's leading producer of e-waste. All types of cars in weight will exceed the CT and become the leading ELV in 20 years later. In quantity, MC, car, and EV still maintain a rapid increment until 2050. Other vehicles are moving towards saturation ( Supplementary Fig. 12) Response: Figure 1 is improved to illustrate the AM generation and evolution. Figure 2 is to uncover the evolution and map of contained resources in AM.
9. Specific comment: Nomenclatures, abbreviation, Figure, and Table  Response: Thanks again for your professional pointing-out.
(2) Nomenclatures are enriched again for better understanding without Supplementary Figure 1. (3) Supplementary Figure 2 helps to understand the difference of the production, consumption, and theoretical consumption. It is also suggested from another reviewer to add.
(4) Okay, we keep Supplementary Figure 3 and shorten the notes. (7) Agree, the information in Supplementary Figure 13A has been combined as new Figure 2 in the new revised article.

Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author): Title: Anthropogenic mineral supply through a circular economy approach has potential to meet Chinese resource consumption General Comment: Still, the manuscript is far from the acceptance for publication. The justifications are given below. # Title is a statement: Yes, every circular economist, recycling researcher, and policymaker knew it well. Hence, the title needs to tell the story of the subject. The subject is the author has developed a modeling tool to predict the future of AM generation and its potential to meet demand from secondary resources. Hence, the title is not reflecting the story rather a statement concludes a very subjective concept. Revising title recommended. # Abstract has spent over 2 pages to start the subject itself, which is an ineffective way of presenting. The abstract is lacking to tell what are the challenges are rather a long story of AM which is not precise. I would tell combine first 4 paragraph into a paragraph and rather jump to problem and issues, what is the approach of paper to address the issue.
# I do not find really why this particular model is important to consider and associated benefits. In my understanding data has the potential to justify it. There is lots of scope in the data to develop realworld confidence which has been neglected.
# Real-world benefit of the model is not quite clear. Of course, one can very well be correlated based on data, which authors are lacking to explain well.
# In the data treatment significance digit is not fully taken into consideration. Example Figure 2(a), hence, should be taken care of.
# To justify the model actually works within a certain time limit, some proof should be given. Justifying the model could be true with 95% confidence interval etc.
# I believe there is lots of scope in the data to correlate how the model can address the AM circular economy issue in particular and related issues in general.
Recommendation: The manuscript is not ready to be accepted.
1. Title is a statement: Yes, every circular economist, recycling researcher, and policymaker knew it well. Hence, the title needs to tell the story of the subject. The subject is the author has developed a modeling tool to predict the future of AM generation and its potential to meet demand from secondary resources. Hence, the title is not reflecting the story rather a statement concludes a very subjective concept. Revising title recommended.
Response: Many thanks for your suggestions. Actually, in the past two years the title has revised several times. After new discussion, the title is improved as:

Mapping anthropogenic mineral generation in China and its implications for a circular economy
2. Abstract has spent over 2 pages to start the subject itself, which is an ineffective way of presenting.
The abstract is lacking to tell what are the challenges are rather a long story of AM which is not precise. I would tell combine first 4 paragraph into a paragraph and rather jump to problem and issues, what is the approach of paper to address the issue.
Response: Very good suggestions. Thanks. The abstract is greatly shortened to highlight the problem and contribution.
Abstract: Anthropogenic mineral is absorbing wide concern in the context of circular economy, but its generation mechanism and quantity from product to waste remain unclear. Here we consider three 3. I do not find really why this particular model is important to consider and associated benefits. In my understanding data has the potential to justify it. There is lots of scope in the data to develop real-world confidence which has been neglected. Real-world benefit of the model is not quite clear.
Of course, one can very well be correlated based on data, which authors are lacking to explain well.
Response: Some sentences are improved to highlight the feasibility and applicability of the model.
The revised Weibull distribution model is designed with a full consideration of regulated lifespan.  Table 12), with a time-consuming review of global literature, report, and some interviews; The second is to measure the relationship between anthropogenic mineral reserve and future material demand (Fig. 5). Real-world situation in China has been considered from the quantity of product to Weibull lifespan distribution parameters. Additional explanation is added for better understanding.
Material flow analysis framework. More than ten methods or models have been adopted for AM estimation in previous studies (Their applications and difference can be seen in Supplementary   Tables 6 and 7). The selection of a particular method depends mainly on data availability and robustness. 38,39 During the process of urban metabolism, products flow into the society (sales), then accumulate in the built environment (stock); when reaching end of life (EoL) after a certain period (lifespan), they flow out as an AM. 40 MFA models quantitatively describe the dynamics, magnitude and interconnection of product sales, stocks and lifespans. 41, 42, 43 … Data regression. Any given products as the net production from Eq. 1 was assumed to be both consumed and discarded in China, and its future demand was then determined using a time-step method based on data regression (Fig. 1). Ideally, the Logistic equation is feasible and applicable to fulfill the forecasting future consumption. It is characterized of the rapid growth at the start stage, stable growth at the middle stage, and slow growth for a constant at the late stage, and could be expressed by exponential function, linear function, and constant value, respectively. 44 Additionally, the decline of production and consumption commonly occurs while the product is replaced. This principle is substantially applied to align the unavailable data.
…In particular, the Weibull statistical distribution was chosen for this study to model the lifetime of product (Fig. 1). For no regulated-lifespan products like EEEs and bicycle, the probability density function (PDF) of the Weibull distribution is given by Eq. 2. 51,56 Regarding the regulated-lifespan products like vehicle, and wiring and cable, the regulated lifespan should be considered for a revised Weibull lifespan curve (Eq. 3).
Supplementary Fig. 13 The comparison of typical AM estimation 4. In the data treatment significance digit is not fully taken into consideration. Example Figure 2(a), hence, should be taken care of.
Response: thanks, the significance digit of all the relevant data has been checked and improved in the two-separating document as Source Data and Supplementary excel table. Here are some instances.
5. To justify the model actually works within a certain time limit, some proof should be given.
Justifying the model could be true with 95% confidence interval etc. I believe there is lots of scope in the data to correlate how the model can address the AM circular economy issue in particular and related issues in general.
Response: Some proof has been added to validate the results. The discussion to reflect the real-world situation is also improved especially for the obtained results.  Table 10). 58,70 The importation of AM will fall dramatically leading to eventual cessation of such external sources within a few years (Fig. 2e). Around 99% plastic waste, for instance, has been descended from 7.05 Mt in 2017 to 0.076 Mt in 2018. The solution to plastic waste management is becoming an increasing concern in the European countries, like the UK and France.

REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author): By following the answers provided by the authors about the comments of Reviewer #4, I have followed very carefully every answer. The authors have answered the five comments with a detailed explanation and have added important information so that each doubt will be completely satisfied. In addition, the authors have put emphasis on the source data which has been included as an Excel supplementary document. With these arguments, and taking into account that the authors have put a lot of effort to improve the manuscript, I consider it deserves to be published in Nature Communications.
By following the answers provided by the authors about the comments of Reviewer #4, I have followed very carefully every answer. The authors have answered the five comments with a detailed explanation and have added important information so that each doubt will be completely satisfied. In addition, the authors have put emphasis on the source data which has been included as an Excel supplementary document. With these arguments, and taking into account that the authors have put a lot of effort to improve the manuscript, I consider it deserves to be published in Nature Communications.