Enhanced Methane Production from Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Wheat Straw Rice Straw and Sugarcane Bagasse: A Kinetic Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments:

1. Improve quality of Figures 1 and 4, please.

 

2. Units (always in parentheses), also in Figures - to a uniform notation - correct, please. Numerous editorial shortcomings (spaces, references); follow the guidelines for authors and take care of good graphics and editing.

 

3. Explain all abbreviations in the text, please.

 

4. Conclusions must correlate with the abstract. The abstract seems too descriptive in the first part; correct it please.

 

5. The introduction contains generally known information. The description of the anaerobic digestion stages, doesn’t make much sense. It lacks detailed information on the management problems of lignocellulose substrates (in AD). Refer to technological solutions proposed by other scientists, as well as discuss the chemical limitations of the decomposition of lignocellulosic materials.

 

Author Response

We are thankful to the editor for his considerations and positive response. We have replied to the comments of worthy reviewers, made necessary changes in the manuscript where required, and summarized them all in the section A for Reviewer 1. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Regarding research article entitled Enhanced Methane Production from Anaerobic Co-digestion of wheat straw and rice straw: A Kinetic Analysis to Applied Sciences Journal.  

The concept of the manuscript is novel, fits and suitable to publish in Applied Sciences Journal. This manuscript is generally well written and clearly presented however still need to address many comments, and thus require substantial major revision before its acceptance.

• Title need to be modified which can describe the whole research work. why do authors mention only wheat straw and rice straw?
• In abstract authors should mention the values of results and importance of research work in one or two sentences. Remove the introductory part. Don’t use any abbreviation here
• Provide a nice graphical abstract representing the research work.
• In the introduction section, write the novelty of the work and the problem statement clearly. Give quantitative data of selected biomass in Pakistan. 
• Substantial discussion on co-digestion with examples is essential. Pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass is a rate limiting steps so detailed discussion on thesis is quiet expected authors can refer some recent research articles Fuel 251, 352-367, 2019. Some investigators used rice straw and wheat straw for butanediol Bioresource technology 205, 90-96, 2016 and bioplastics production Industrial Crops and Products 150, 112425, 2020 such kinds of studies should be discussed in terms of how biogas production is viable technology?.
• Why kinetics is essential need to elaborate well.
• There is no information about which pretreatment authors have applied for selected lignocellulosic biomass?
• Statistical analysis of the results should be provided in the materials and methods section. It's important for all experimental work Report these values in the results and discussion.
• If authors used MSW or other solid waste residues for Co Digestion instead of using different lignocellulosic biomass would be more economically feasible discuss this issue effectively.
• This manuscript lacking substantial discussion of results woithe the literature authors should concentrate on this during revision.
• Write the practical applications and future research perspectives and challenges by adding a new section before conclusions
• The conclusion of the study is not discussed with the specific output obtained from the study, it could be modified with precise outcomes with a take home message.
• English and grammar mistakes are present. The author should check the manuscript by native English Speaker to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

We are thankful to the editor for his considerations and positive response. We have replied to the comments of worthy reviewers, made necessary changes in the manuscript where required, and summarized them all for Reviewer 2. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have revised the manuscript according to the reviewer comments however still some modifications are essential before its acceptance.

In graphical abstract text size is not visible it should be higher.

Similarly In all figures the text size is not visible and modify figures with higher text size.

In all figure and table captions give all experimental details Some unit styles are not in standard format.

Some English and grammar corrections are required.

Author Response

We are thankful to the editor for his considerations and positive response. We have replied to the comments of worthy reviewers, made necessary changes in the manuscript where required, and summarized them all for Reviewer 2.  The yellow highlighted part in the document represents the modification that we have made in our manuscript.