Actual Trends in the Usability of Biochar as a High-Value Product of Biomass Obtained through Pyrolysis
, Roksana Muzyka 1, Grzegorz Gałko 3, Ewelina Ksepko 4, Monika Zajemska 5, Szymon Sobek 6 and Dariusz Tercki 7
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic is quite interesting (utilization of biochar), with a region specific focus and a fairly prepared manuscript. However, the text outweighs the figures and makes it hard for it to be a well prepared review article.
The first suggestion would be to transform the text into figures/tables for it to be easier for the reader. Other technical observations and conclusions are sound.
Hence a major revision in terms of figure preparation and shortening text will make it a better read.
Author Response
The authors are grateful for valuable suggestions. The article was improved in response to the suggestion. All responses to reviewer comments were submitted in a separate file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
see the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
The authors are grateful for valuable suggestions. The article was improved in response to the suggestion. All responses to reviewer comments were submitted in a separate file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript “The high value utilization product of biomass pyrolysis: biochar” concerns biochar production and use in industry, and agriculture, and will be interesting for Energies readers after revision.
The title: Biochar as product … - rewrite the title to underline the role of biochar.
The aims: what is the main purpose? lack of any methods.
The issue under consideration concerning biocarbon and its sequestration is very topical at present, especially its extraction from biomass.
The reviewed text is very comprehensive, but the structure is clear and logically constructed. The reviewed publication can be an important contribution to the consideration of biomass use in industry, agriculture, and broader sustainable development.
Some specific comments:
l. 635-655; 656 – 691;- 692 – 706; 740-748; 740-751, and so on – the huge fragments from the literature sources.
Author Response
The authors are grateful for valuable suggestions. The article was improved in response to the suggestion. All responses to reviewer comments were submitted in a separate file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
- Measurement Units need to be revised. It is necessary to use measurement units from the I.S.
- Chapter 2.5 is repeated in its entirety. Likewise, chapter 2.6, where lines 844-953 are identical to 1027-1118.
- Chapters 3 and 4 are missing.
- Authors' contributions are not clearly presented.
Author Response
The authors are grateful for valuable suggestions. The article was improved in response to the suggestion. All responses to reviewer comments were submitted in a separate file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Some minor remarks which can improve readability:
1. Is it mg of CO2 or Mg of CO2? please check
2. maybe € 18 - 320 and not 18 - 320 EUR, please check
The figures which you have added shows considerable improvement. Still I recommend a minor examination if reduction of text is possible at all (not mandatory).
Reviewer 4 Report
The revised form of the paper may be published
