Full-Chain FeCl₃ Catalyzation Is Sufficient to Boost Cellulase Secretion and Cellulosic Ethanol along with Valorized Supercapacitor and Biosorbent Using Desirable Corn Stalk

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

the manuscript is well structured and also far too extensive in my opinion, it would probably have been better to break it into two parts, one focusing on degradative performance and the other on the potential applications of non-fermentable products such as lignin, starting from 2.5 of the results, in my opinion, it could definitely be another manuscript.

Anyway, here are my comments:

Major

do not use abbreviations in the abstract                        

the authors should determine or provide some bibliographic evidence, that the FeCl3 concentrations used are not toxic and do not cause cell lysis

verifying that it is actually proteins that are secreted that are found, and in the case of secretion by what mechanism they are exported

it would be interesting to have an explanation as to why even if the amount of protein in 0.01% FeCl3 is higher (slightly), the degradative activities are better with 0.05% FeCl3

Minor:

Line 29 T.reesei

check that the name T. reesei is in italics throughout the manuscript

Table 2 add * close all the data not available or detectable

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is well-written and the reading is easy. Some parts of this work have been already published but some novelty was added and all these new data bring useful information.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript should be accepted after major revision, my comments are below:

1. Abstract and title of Manuscript should be changed. It is not totally clear the aims and objectives of paper.

2. Raman spectra need to be deconvoluted.

3. XPS spectra of Fe must be deconvoluted and discussed.

4.  Please, explain what is battery-suprcapacitors? It can not be both.

5. CV at different scan rates must be provided.

6. Capacitance retention at different scan rates must also be provided.

7. GCD at different current densities must be provided.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I thank the authors for taking my comments into consideration, the manuscript is much improved. My only perplexity remains on table 2, where despite being asked, there are values that are not shown, it is not clear whether they are not available or have been omitted. I suggest improving this point

Author Response

Thanks for kind comments and the concern with the unpresented data of Table 2. We carefully checked the orignial articles, and could not find the data that are available. So we revised the Table 2 “The data are not available.”

Reviewer 3 Report

It can be accepted in present form.

Author Response

Thanks for encouraging comments.