Conversion of Biomass to Chemicals via Electrofermentation of Lactic Acid Bacteria
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This review examines the development of electrofermentation as a technique for managing the redox balance in bacterial biocatalysts as well as its potential to boost lactate production from biomass from low-value plants.
Major comments:
- In general, a review article should have some novelty, while this manuscript looks more descriptive rather than informative. From this perspective, I suggest the authors to provide a more critical summary of the current evidences.
- In addition to the positive and negative aspects, the abstract of the review article should also report the pitfalls, limitations and future prospects (aimed at overcoming the negative aspects).
- The introduction section must refer to more citations that are recent; specifically some concepts must be expanded with more recent bibliography on that topic.
- Lines 240, 247, 278 and 357: The authors often refer to LAB with homofermentative metabolism but never make explicit the microbial species involved. Please mention the species involved in such processes.
- Line 385: Change “tractability” to ”traceability”;
- A paragraph on “Future prospects” reporting the future directions of research is mandatory for a review article.
Minor comment:
- The references section contains a large number of errors and imprecisions. Check formatting. There are double dashes separating page numbers (e.g. Lines 409, 417, 423, 425), Journal titles not abbreviated (e.g. Line 421: Current Opinion in Biotechnology should be written as Curr Opin Biotechnol).
Author Response
Major comments:
- In general, a review article should have some novelty, while this manuscript looks more descriptive rather than informative. From this perspective, I suggest the authors to provide a more critical summary of the current evidences.
Sections have been added and expanded upon to more more critically evaluate the field
- In addition to the positive and negative aspects, the abstract of the review article should also report the pitfalls, limitations and future prospects (aimed at overcoming the negative aspects).
A section has been added to talk in further detail about the current state of the field and the potential limitations on electrofermentation, and details potential solutions.
- The introduction section must refer to more citations that are recent; specifically some concepts must be expanded with more recent bibliography on that topic.
The introduction section has been re-titled as “History of Microbial Electrosynthesis” to more accurately reflect the content of that section. This serves to introduce electrofermentation in the context of the history of electrosynthesis more broadly. As such the more current references are found in the following section that looks at the current state of electrofermentation.
- Lines 240, 247, 278 and 357: The authors often refer to LAB with homofermentative metabolism but never make explicit the microbial species involved. Please mention the species involved in such processes.
Specific genera that comprise the majority of LAB have been included in this section.
- Line 385: Change “tractability” to ”traceability”;
This line relates specifically to the ability of certain LAB species to be genetically modified, therefore tractability is the appropriate word in this case.
- A paragraph on “Future prospects” reporting the future directions of research is mandatory for a review article.
A future prospects section has been added to the manuscript
Minor comment:
- The references section contains a large number of errors and imprecisions. Check formatting. There are double dashes separating page numbers (e.g. Lines 409, 417, 423, 425), Journal titles not abbreviated (e.g. Line 421: Current Opinion in Biotechnology should be written as Curr Opin Biotechnol).
Bibliography has been formatted according to the MDPI style guide. All references are in unabbreviated form, abbreviation is not specified (as far as I can see) in submission guidelines?
Reviewer 2 Report
The review explores the use of electroactive bacteria for the production of valuable compounds (biofuels and biochemicals). The work is interesting and fits well within the scope of this journal. However, the authors need to revise this manuscript before it can be accepted for publication.
1. Line 29: laboratory Not laboratostory
2. Change MEC's to MECs - this is the correct expression that is used in the literature
3. Line 50: wastewater NOT waste water, it's one word
4. Revise Line 50, maybe add "wastewater as a cheap carbon source..."
5. Don't add the word "Section" in your sub-headings, just number these as it is done in the literature...
6. Some MEC studies have reached pilot-scale, please include these studies in your manuscript. This can be another sub-heading..
7. Provide recommendations/suggestions: the way forward in this field..
Author Response
- Line 29: laboratory Not laboratostory
Done
2. Change MEC's to MECs - this is the correct expression that is used in the literature
Done
3. Line 50: wastewater NOT waste water, it's one word
Done
4. Revise Line 50, maybe add "wastewater as a cheap carbon source..."
Revised
5. Don't add the word "Section" in your sub-headings, just number these as it is done in the literature...
Removed
6. Some MEC studies have reached pilot-scale, please include these studies in your manuscript. This can be another sub-heading..
Additional references have been added with the section expanded to give more details on the challenges and potential fixes. However as this section is aimed to introduce electrofermentation in the context of the history and progression of MECs and MFCs i do not feel that a separate section specifically for MFCs falls within the remit of this paper.
7. Provide recommendations/suggestions: the way forward in this field..
A future prospects section has been included, and a further section with additional detail about the challenges and solutions to scalability.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All of the suggestions have been provided by the authors. The article, in my opinion, is suitable for journal publishing.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed all my queries, so I recommend the acceptance of this paper.
