Kiln-Furnace System: Validation of a Technology for Producing Charcoal with Less Environmental Impact in Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject presented is interesting but the paper content has mostly the form of a general project presentation and that's my most serious objection about approving its publishment as it is. Almost all specialized technical and scientific issues are presented in citations 27,  28 and this paper is just some kind of a general outcome and in any case not autonomous, since a possible reader has to study extensively citations 27 and 28 to see "what is behind". So this has to be improved radically. Furthermore, English language has to be substantially improved since some serious mistakes occur even from the beginning of the text e.g. : "The Brazil..."

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language has to be substantially improved since some serious mistakes occur even from the beginning of the text e.g. : "The Brazil..."

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.
Regarding references 27 and 28, they were cited because they are the basis for the calculation equations and for evaluating the variations in the process, it is already something applied and the important thing about the methodology in our research is the equations that are described, we cited the methodology precisely so that the reader would need to delve into new routes. But the application of this research, especially from the point of view of rural producers, is an innovation for achieving new perspectives on sustainability in charcoal production. Regarding the English, the sentence has been corrected, which was a mistake, but the text has been revised and is up to standard. Regarding the methodology, the focus was precisely to show how impactful this form of charcoal production is in reducing gas emissions, which is why the quotes and the way the methodology was presented.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This interesting research will increase the reader's knowledge of charcoal production with more environmentally friendly. Several things still need to be explained and strengthened to improve this manuscript:

In the “introduction” section, the importance of assessing GHG emissions has not been clearly explained; what obstacles are faced in assessing GHG emissions, and what the advantages of using MRV methodology in this research during the assessment of It must also be clarified whether this research wants to test the use of MRV methodology or evaluate the kiln-furnace system at the research location.

Figure 1 should be more apparent if it uses color (not only black, white, and grey). Does Google Earth appear in black and white?

In the sentence “The wood was hung with a length of 1 meter, density ranging from 544 to 550 kg m-³, average moisture content of 53.21% and diameter from 06 to 26 cm”. Is it 0.6 or 6?

In the conclusion, you suddenly use the term green economy regarding the reduction in the emissions of CH4 and CO2 in the kiln-furnace system. The discussion section should explain the criteria or standards for achieving a green and sustainable economy in charcoal production, which is not only seen from the value of the emissions caused.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.
The application of this research mainly from the point of view of rural producers is an innovation to achieve new perspectives on sustainability in charcoal production. Regarding the English, the text has been revised and is up to standard. Your questions about methodologies, focus and applications have also been added to the text, to make it clearer how important this research has been to achieve sustainability in charcoal production in a horizontal way to reach different producers. Thank you very much for pointing out areas for improvement in the text - they have been taken into account. Regarding the figure, it is in black scale because it was deliberate to highlight the size of the area and costs. I've also taken into account the considerations about how to assess what a green economy is in charcoal production, which goes beyond GHG emissions, and I've added that this is an incredible piece of work. The number is 6 to 26 cm.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper looks well organized. But some comments:

1. Abstract states "6 tons of wood" - at the beginning should be clearly defined how do you measure wood, in t or m3.

2. What is 14.24st in sentence "The kiln-furnace system, Figure 2, consists of four circular surface kilns with a volu-metric capacity of approximately 14.24st or..."

3. Make consistent division through all the text for all expressions i.e. use t/year or t year-1. 

4. Make sure to write correctly CH4, CO2 with indexes through the text.

5. Table 1 has no measuring units for "Log diameter". As well tons must be not capitalised (you use "Tons"). 

6. Table 2 and table 3 has some expression as ton.CO2/ton. de Charcoal. If you use "t", then Tons or ton. must not be used. Use SI system. As well what is "de Charcoal"? What is "Ton CO2e" - make all unit concise.

7. Revise conclusions and check if conclusions answer to the aim of paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor english and grammar is needed.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your considerations and reviews.
The application of this research, especially from the point of view of rural producers, is an innovation for achieving new perspectives on sustainability in charcoal production. Regarding the English, the text has been revised and is up to standard. It has also added to the text its questions about methodologies, focus and applications, to make it more evident how important this research was to achieve sustainability in charcoal production in a horizontal way to reach different producers. The terms and units of the measures evaluated in the methodology in the topics you commented on have been corrected in the text and tables. The conclusions are in line with the central objective and questions raised in the research. Thank you very much for your comments.