Potential of Briquette Produced with Torrefied Agroforestry Biomass to Generate Energy
and Solange de Oliveira Araújo 4,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has scientific potential, but requires corrections and additions. I believe that the manuscript submitted for review brings new information to science regarding the possibility of briquetting a different material. The scientific value is at an appropriate level and is sufficient and coincides with the subject matter of the Forests journal.
Please do the minor adjustments indicated in the detailed notes.
Detailed comments:
- Is the granulometric structure of the compacted biomass known? As she was? Is it the same for all types of biomass?
- Define the torrefication yield methodology in the chapter. How was this figure calculated?
- Is it possible to describe the method of measuring resistance to compression in more detail?
- 149, 150 - the sentence is poorly formulated. The values in the second parenthesis should be in a different order (9.09 to 7.43%). I propose to make it clear that these figures apply to different types of biomass.
- In the symbols of the units write MJ∙m-3 and not MJ.m-3
- 151 - why was the value 22.9 referred to instead of 23.2 MJ∙m-3 this value is the highest,
- 152 - why was the value 17.1 referred to, not 16.8 MJ∙m-3, this value is the smallest
- 157 - MPa, not Mpa,
- Table 2 in the table description is: * significant, nc non significant - how to interpret the results in the table without any symbol?
- Does the term "significant" or "non significant" relate to or not depend on the compaction pressure?
- In the conclusions, the authors focused mainly on the aspect of torrefaction and its impact on the effects of compaction. In my opinion, the conclusions should be supplemented with more space devoted to the differences in results for different types of biomass
Author Response
Dear Editor
The responses and suggestions of reviewer 1 are shown in an attached document. Best regards, Solange Araújo
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors affiliation is not in english, is in spanish.
Why was chosen this pressure (6.21, 8.27 and 10.34)?
What is "s" at row 24 and row 125?
EN 14918 is referring to calorific value, I recommend using calorific value and not heating value.
The natura treatments reduce the biomass moisture content or it is increasing.
Row 155 …, was highest with the higher value…… what do you mean by that.
Author Response
Dear Editor
The responses and suggestions of reviewer 2 are shown in an attached document.
Best regards,
Solange Araújo
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic of this research work in very interesting and suitable to be published in this journal. I would like to make the following suggestions for the improvement of this work.
There are some grammatical and type errors in the text (example line 24)
In line 49: I believe that the word electricity is not appropriate, please rephrase.
In the introduction chapter, please add one or two paragraphs providing the state-of-the-art of torrefaction of such or similar biomass types (agro, industrial, urban etc.). There are such studies and it is necessary them to be referred to in your text and describe the knowledge and most significant findings of them. The authors did not provide any information about the raw materials included in the text. For example, for eucalyptus or pine wood, what kind of wastes are you referring to? mechanical/logging wastes?/is there any bark/branches/roots inside the material or you removed them (some of these quastions asre clarified only in the discussion chapter, please clarify in materials chapter)? And for the other two coffee wastes and bagasse as well please provide some details. It would be useful to provide also an image of the raw materials.
In 2.3. Torrefaction Process, you should provide some more details, such as the atmosphere. It is not very clear if the torrefaction process lasted only 10 minutes, otherwise provide the duration of the treatment at 300oC. Did you base the specific torrefaction process on a standard methodology or previous studies.
In 2.4. Briquettes Production, which was the moisture content of biomass types at the time of briquetting?
Line 93 is not very clear, I recommend to provide more words and details to be more comprehended.
In line 130, please rephrase, since it is not fully comprehended. In results chapter there are several grammatical errors, please make a check in the whole text. You should provide some images of the different briquettes prepared, since it would be useful to the readers and attractiveness of the article or the materials with and without torrefaction treatment. You do not refer to European/international standards about the requirements for use of briqquettes in residential/industrial applications. In which quality classes are the prepared briquettes categorized? are they suitable for residential use (concerning for example the ash content)?
A brief comment about the cost of production of such briquettes fuel should be added in my opinion in the discussion chapter, since the cost of raw materials is indeed zero, but what about torrefaction and briquetting?
Author Response
Dear Editor
The responses and suggestions of reviewer 3 are shown in an attached document.
Best regards,
Solange Araújo
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
