Circular Economy Strategies: Use of Corn Waste to Develop Biomaterials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors present a manuscript entitled “Circular Economy Strategies: Use of corn waste to develop products”. “The main objective of this research is to be able to understand if it is possible to take advantage of waste for the development of raw materials that can be used later as a basis for product design …” (Lines 328-330).

The topic is of great interest, but several aspects in the manuscript concerning structure, methodology and discussion of the results should be improved. In my opinion the paper, in its actual status, is not acceptable for publication.

Below some comments useful for Authors.

Use key words not included in the title.

Introduction is too generic: it should be more focused on the use of corn waste as raw material.

Materials and Methods

L59-81: this part contains general considerations and should be moved in Introduction section.

Methodology section must be limited to providing the information necessary to develop the experimental activity. All comments and considerations must be moved in Introduction section. The methodology is too approximate: all information necessary to make the experiment reproducible must be reported in the manuscript. Parameters analyzed, measurement methods, instruments used, data analysis, must also be reported in this section. Flow chart in Fig. 2 must be translated in English.

Results

Results section must report results of the experimental activity only. For each parameter analyzed, quantitative data (if available) must be reported.

The main objective of the research (L328-334) must be moved in Introduction or Materials and Method section.

Discussion

Results must be discussed with reference to other similar experiments reported in the literature.

Conclusions must be rewritten according to my previous observations. In its actual status, they are too general: they must be concise and pertinent to the activity carried.

Finally, although I am not in a position to judge the English language, a revision is recommended.

 

Author Response

-The key words were changed. -The introduction became more specific focused on raw materials. -Suggested parts were moved to recommended sections. -The methodology presents the elaboration in more detail -Figure 2 is in English -Results are compared to an existing product -The conclusions were rewritten

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 12, who is a corresponding author?

Line 120, of each one. of the ?

Materials and Methods, in which year was the experiment conducted?

Figure 1. Please remove

Figure 2. Do the authors consent to the publication? Information on the Figure drawing should be in English

Figure 3. Source?

Conclusions, the conclusions are too long, longer than the discussion

Author Response

-The main author is indicated -The year of the project is specified -Figure 1 is removed -Figure 2 is modified and translates -Sources in figure 3 are indicated -Conclusions are rewritten

Reviewer 3 Report

The content of the article does not match the title. There is no description of product development research in this article. The authors should either supplement the content with product development research or change the title indicating that the article concerns the research of the production of raw materials from which products/packaging can be made.  There is a lack of the characteristic of the raw material made from corn. Is the production of paper and cardboard from corn cellulose really an innovative technology? It was described in 2010 (see [35] in References) On the Internet we can find many videos showing such a technology, eg.  How to Make Paper from Corn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ficWmKjNlE

Figure 2 is in Spanish

Conclusions are too lengthy and inconsistent

The word „cardboard” is repeated multiple times in line 489

Author Response

-The title was modified -The characteristics of the material cannot be deepened beyond what was proposed due to the scope of the original project -Although the proposal already exists, what it seeks is to generate a reprocessing through which it is done more efficiently and still being functional, eliminating stages such as bleaching. -Figure 2 was translated -The conclusions were rewritten -The repeated word is corrected

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

General observation

The second submission of the manuscript entitled “Circular Economy Strategies: Use of corn waste to develop products” was improved with respect the first one and, in my opinion, the paper may be published after correcting some minor errors.

Below some suggestions for further improvements.

Use key words not included in the title (Circular Economy).

Figure 2 is cut on the right side.

When referring to figures, schemes or tables, avoid using expressions like “in the previous graph” (L148) or “is presented below” (L162), or “the previous scheme” (L168), or “the table above” (L420). Refer to objects by name (Figure 1, Table 1, and so on).

Applicability subsection reports an example of using the proposed material as food packaging: the suitability for this purpose should be discussed.

Conclusion: the sentence “thus reducing the carbon footprint” (L544) is not supported by the experimental activity and should be deleted. A LCA is necessary, here not carried out (L499-5002).

References must be formatted according to reference style journal.

Finally, there are a lot of minor English and typographical errors that can be corrected during the proofreading stage.

 

Author Response

Respond to revisor #1

 

Good Morning,

First, thanks a lot for your recommendations, next i am going to explain all the changes to the new version:

 

-Keywords were changed.

-Figure #2 was changed for a full image.

-The referring to figures, schemes and tables were referenced by their name.

- The references of the studies shown in the article present the suitability for this purpose (develop food packaging), since the material that is developed does not present any component that generates damages to the product that it is going to support.

-Conclusion: the sentence “thus reducing the carbon footprint” (L544) was changed for a premise that presents the possibility to analyze the behavior of the material in more structured studies.

-The LCA is propose like a continuation of the raw material analysis, but this activity is not part of the investigation original process.

-At the final part the references were organized like the structure presented in the guide to write articles (word template for authors).

-The principal typographical errors were corrected, but if there are more, please highlight them for solve the problem.

 

Thanks a lot for your appreciations and help to improve my article.

 

Hernán Darío Castaño Castrillón

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is much better after revision, but references must be improved according to the "Sustainability" standard.

Author Response

Respond to revisor #1

 

Good Morning,

First, thanks a lot for your recommendations, next i am going to explain all the changes to the new version:

 

-At the final part the references were organized like the structure presented in the guide to write articles (word template for authors).

 

Thanks a lot for your appreciations and help to improve my article.

 

Hernán Darío Castaño Castrillón