Optimization and Analysis of Liquid Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Agro-Industrial Wastes via Mixture Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the paper “ Optimization and analysis of liquid anaerobic co-digestion of agro-industrial wastes via mixture design” the authors studied the integration of high-rate anaerobic reactors in conventional agricultural biogas plants. Generally, this manuscript is interesting, meaningful and well planned. It can be accepted after minor revision.

The most important general comments:

1. Reading the work, one has the impression that it is not fully discussed.

The authors included a "results" section but the manuscript lacks either a discussion or a "results and discussion" section. I recommend extending the discussion with additional literature items.

2. In my opinion, the conclusions are very general and do not relate sufficiently to the results. Please refer to the results of your research in conclusions.
3. Editorial errors appear throughout the manuscript, eg. Lines: 90, 101, 208. Please correct the text carefully.

 

The most important detailed comments:

1. Keywords: „optimization” - I wonder if it is not worth specifying what these optimization refer to?
2. Table 3 “Summary of the analyses”. Please describe the table in more detail, what analyzes does it apply to?
3. Figure 2. “Single degradations of piglet manure, cow manure, and starch wastewater”. The order of the graphs is different than what is given in the description. Please explain what “a, b, c” mean.
4. Figure 3: the font is illegible, please use a larger font.
5. I believe that all charts could be of better quality and the font of the charts should be consistent with the text.
6. Table 4: the notation of the cited literature is incorrect, please correct.
7. Please use indices in chemical formulas.
8. Please read the authors' guide carefully and correct references.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your insightful suggestions. I tried to fulfill them as much as I could in these four days. I agreed with every change proposed by you. The modifications are highlighted in the new document. 

Best wishes

Roberto E. Hernández Regalado

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I enjoyed reviewing this article. It is well written and thorough.  The conclusions are supported by the results.

I recommend minor changes.

Figure 2 has curves for a, b, c.  I assume these are replicate runs, but this should be explained in the figure title.

It appears that the labels for a, b, c in Figure 3 are misnumbered in the Figure title.  a) should be yield, b) should be rate c) should be desirability

The graphs in Fig. 3 are difficult to read, should be larger.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. I proceeded to make the changes proposed by you since all of them were meaningful. The modifications are highlighted in the new document. I hope you find satisfactory the new document. 

Best wishes

Roberto E. Hernández Regalado

Author Response File: Author Response.docx