Medical Peat Waste Upcycling to Carbonized Solid Fuel in the Torrefaction Process
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
the paper is of scientific and original nature, related to Medical Peat Waste upcycling to Carbonized Solid Fuel in the torrefaction process.
For a better clarification, please edit your paper as follows: Enlarge the Introduction with current results reported in the world and Europe - References to expand the results of European authors registered in SCOPUS / WoS such as: Safety requirements for mining complexes controlled in automatic mode. In line 37 – what does it mean Mg x rok-1? Please check all indexes. Modify the mathematical expressions (formulas) No: 1, 2 and 3 according to the instructions in the template. All figures should be contrasting and readable and insert according to the instructions in the template. There are some grammar mistakes. Authors should check the whole text, figures, references and improve them, according to journal’s guidelines, eg. lack of DOI in the references. Please, include abbreviations with their meanings directly in the text.
Conclusions and future work should be extended to contain practical applications based on research described in this paper, edit the paper according to the template. Please revise the manuscript with English grammar. There are many places that the manuscript needs to be improved with respect to English writing. Please, edit the paper according to previous comments and after minor changes I recommend the paper to be published.
Author Response
The responses to the reviewer's comments are in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article "Medical Peat Waste upcycling to Carbonized Solid Fuel in the torrefaction process" is presented at the good scientific level and could be interesting to readers, but there are some points that should be corrected before publishing: In my research experience the methods for analyzing of physics state of the material by TGA only is not enough: it should be presented the material sciences analysis, such as FTIR, XRD, SEM and TEM if possible. Also, English should be improved. If authors are discussing the biochar possible preparation - the BET should be provided.
Author Response
The responses to the reviewer's comments are in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Section 2.2.2 - Citing previous studies is fine, but the values of the proximate and other analyses should still be in the current paper. Please do not send the reader hunting through other articles unnecessarily.
Line 221 - Need to specify which analyses the authors are using.
Need to differentiate between volatile solids (VS) [section 2.2.2] and VM. VM is not defined in the text and is presumed to be volatile matter.
Additionally, the proximate analysis detailed in lines 260-1 is physically impossible. The sum should be 100% for VM, FC, and AC on a dry basis.
The properties of the reference material (wood) are not specified; "wood" properties vary wildly. Reference 35 does not include any wood in their studies.
The reviewer encourages authors to expand literature to include Scandinavian and Canadian torrefaction studies, e.g., Umeå University and Åbo Akademi University.
The manuscript needs to be reviewed for grammar.
Author Response
The responses to the reviewer's comments are in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
