Innovative Olive Tree Leaves Shredder Prototype for the Valorization of Wasted Leaves: An Application to High-Quality Compost Production
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The management of biowaste represent a significant environmental problem in all countries. the use of food waste for the production of valuable by-products and energy is well studied. The publication is well written and is highliting the need for optimization of treatment of the waste especially in term of olive waste , which is relevant to the mediterranean bassin. Vermicompost is a good way of valorize the leaves left around the trees which can be a fire hazard.
It will be valuable to add a paragraph and discussion on the toxicity of olive leaves during the composting process in piles. The authors must refer to the studies by Manios 1989, and the work bu Charisiou (https://lafec.chemeng.uowm.gr/files/%ce%92_25_ATHENS_2014.pdf).
Nitrogen losses is a concern and should be discussed further. In the conclusion, the potential optimization of the composting process should be linked to the use for mushroom production. My concern is although the heavy metals tested are bellow the law limits, they can be a problem in a long run if exposure to them is longer. the authors must highlight the need for further cleaning leachates etc...
Author Response
Answers to reviewer 1 comments:
The authors would like to thank the reviewer 1 for the valuable comments. Here following, you can find a reply point by point to the reviewer 1 suggestions:
Rev 1: The management of bio-waste represent a significant environmental problem in all countries. the use of food waste for the production of valuable by-products and energy is well studied. The publication is well written and is highlighting the need for optimization of treatment of the waste especially in term of olive waste, which is relevant to the Mediterranean basin. Vermicomposting is a good way of valorize the leaves left around the trees which can be a fire hazard.
Answer: thanks, we really appreciate it.
Rev 1: It will be valuable to add a paragraph and discussion on the toxicity of olive leaves during the composting process in piles. The authors must refer to the studies by Manios 1989, and the work bu Charisiou and the nitrogen losses is a concern and should be discussed further. (https://lafec.chemeng.uowm.gr/files/%ce%92_25_ATHENS_2014.pdf).
Answer: we warmly thank reviewer 1 for this valuable suggestion. We added the requested paragraph. Please see lines from 159 to 167 and the added references from lines 241 to 248.
Rev 1: In the conclusion, the potential optimization of the composting process should be linked to the use for mushroom production.
Answer: done, thanks. Please see lines 177-178.
Rev 1: My concern is although the heavy metals tested are below the law limits, they can be a problem in a long run if exposure to them is longer. the authors must highlight the need for further cleaning leachates etc...
Answer: we definitely agree with reviewer 1, for this reason we added a couple of sentences regarding long term concerns at lines 166–167.
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all, I want to say to the Authors that this work present important ideas that are potentially of interest especially to practitioners. However, this is a study that cannot be published in its current form.
First of all, the article was not prepared in accordance with the requirements of the publisher.
Authors should use the Microsoft Word template or LaTeX template to prepare their manuscript.
References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript.
In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3].
References should be described as follows, depending on the type of work:
Journal Articles:
Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.
Books and Book Chapters:
Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Book Title, 3rd ed.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, Year; pp. 154–196.
Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Title of the chapter. In Book Title, 2nd ed.; Editor 1, A., Editor 2, B., Eds.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, Year; Volume 3, pp. 154–196.
Please refer to the guidelines for authors:
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions
The paper is only 6 pages long, consisting of an introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion. There is a lack of balance between the different parts of the paper. The research results and discussion covers only 1 page.
The introduction should include specific research objectives. Please, set out the specific research objectives by finding ground for it.
The review of the literature should have culminated with a set of hypotheses (or research questions) perfectly aligned to the subsequent empirical evidence that has been obtained in the analysis of the results section.
In discussion Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses.
Conclusions should include precise, concise and quantitative statements about the significance of the study, highlight any new findings, and explain how the work could be extended in the future. In this section you should also clearly present the following important aspects:
- the research limitations;
- the future research directions.
The bibliography contains only 14 items of articles. The discussion is missing references to research results of other authors. And also in the introduction there is a weak introduction to the literature on the subject.
I hope these comments can be of help in improving the paper and encourage the Authors to move forward.
Author Response
Answers to reviewer 2 comments:
The authors would like to thank the reviewer 2 for the valuable comments. Here following, you can find a reply point by point to the reviewer 2 suggestions:
Rev 2: First of all, I want to say to the Authors that this work present important ideas that are potentially of interest especially to practitioners.
Answer: thanks, we really appreciate it.
Rev 2: However, this is a study that cannot be published in its current form. First of all, the article was not prepared in accordance with the requirements of the publisher. Authors should use the Microsoft Word template or LaTeX template to prepare their manuscript. References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript. In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. References should be described as follows, depending on the type of work: Journal Articles: Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range. Books and Book Chapters: Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Book Title, 3rd ed.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, Year; pp. 154–196. Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Title of the chapter. In Book Title, 2nd ed.; Editor 1, A., Editor 2, B., Eds.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, Year; Volume 3, pp. 154–196. Please refer to the guidelines for authors: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions.
Answer: We warmly thank reviewer 2 for this very important comment. Moreover, we apologize for the mistake. Now the paper is edited according to the guide for authors; in particular references are now numbered and ordered according to appearance in the text. Moreover, figures and tables has been reported in the paper and ordered according to appreance on the text. Finally, the reference list has been edited according to the indications. Please see the new short communication.
Rev 2: The paper is only 6 pages long, consisting of an introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion.
Answer: the submitted paper is not a full-length paper. Instead is a short communication and, for definition and according to the guide for authors, must be a short but complete paper which includes introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion, and conclusions. However, according to the precious suggestions of reviewer 1,2, and 3 we have expanded the paper (till 8 pages). Please see the new short communication.
Rev 2: There is a lack of balance between the different parts of the paper. The research results and discussion covers only 1 page.
Answer: according to the precious suggestions of reviewer 1,2, and 3 we have expanded and balanced the paper. Please see the new short communication.
Rev 2: The introduction should include specific research objectives. Please, set out the specific research objectives by finding ground for it.
Answer: done, thanks. Please see lines from 70 to 74
Rev 2:The review of the literature should have culminated with a set of hypotheses (or research questions) perfectly aligned to the subsequent empirical evidence that has been obtained in the analysis of the results section.
Answer: in order to have a perfectly alignment between introduction and results and discussions sections the introduction has been slightly modified and, moreover, one paragraph has been added in the results and discussion section. Please see lines from 38 to 67 and from 159 to 167.
Rev 2: In discussion Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses.
Answer: results has been discussed and interpreted (from line 116 to 157) and, moreover, one paragraph has been added in results and discussion section (from line 159 to 167).
Rev 2: Conclusions should include precise, concise and quantitative statements about the significance of the study, highlight any new findings, and explain how the work could be extended in the future. In this section you should also clearly present the following important aspects: - the research limitations; - the future research directions.
Answer: conclusions has been revised and the future research perspectives has been highlighted in yellow (lines 180-183). Moreover, according to reviewer 1 suggestion we added the text at lines 177 and 178.
Rev 2: The bibliography contains only 14 items of articles. The discussion is missing references to research results of other authors. And also in the introduction there is a weak introduction to the literature on the subject.
Answer: the submitted paper is a short communication and, for definition and according to the guide for authors, must be a short but complete paper which includes a short list of references. However, according to the precious suggestions of reviewer 1,2, and 3 we have expanded the paper and added more references in the results and discussion, and in the references list. Please see the new short communication.
Rev 2: I hope these comments can be of help in improving the paper and encourage the Authors to move forward
Answer: Definitely yes, thanks. We warmly thanks the reviewer 2 for the valuable comments which significantly improved the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
- Generally, this article is well prepared in the communication for reduction of the volume reduction of the olive tree leaves shredder. The significant result of this communication article is the 40% of waste volume reduction. However, it is recommended to provide more descriptions and support data for this achievement.
- Line 79, there is no Figure 1 that appeared in the manuscript.
- Some grammatical mistakes and typos are listed as follows:
- Line 110, please revise the “between 40 and 60% …..” as “between 40% and 60% …..”. Also, Line 111, please revise the “between 50 and 55% …..” as “between 50% and 55% …..”.
- Line 53, please revise the “This strategy involve …..” This strategy involves …..”.
- Line 64, please revise the “This allows to remove pollutants …..” as “This allows removing pollutants …..”.
- Line 81, please revise the “This allows to the machine …..” as “This allows the machine ….. ”.
- Line 94, please verify the “mixed every two moth to allows aerobic fermentation …..” is correct.
- Line 97, please revise the “every three month (for a total of six month)” as “every three months (for a total of six months)”.
- Line 109 and 112, please revise the “Table 1 show …..” as “Table 1 shows …..”.
- Line 111, please revise the “As a results, according …..” as “As the results, according …..” or “As a result, according …..”.
- Line 130, please revise the “labelled” as “labeled”.
- Line 135, please revise the “For this reasons, …..” as “For these reasons, …..”.
Author Response
Answers to reviewer 3 comments:
The authors would like to thank the reviewer 3 for the valuable comments. Here following, you can find a reply point by point to the reviewer 3 suggestions:
Rev 3: 1 Generally, this article is well prepared in the communication for reduction of the volume reduction of the olive tree leaves shredder.
Answer: thanks, we really appreciate it.
Rev 3: The significant result of this communication article is the 40% of waste volume reduction. However, it is recommended to provide more descriptions and support data for this achievement.
Answer: we warmly thanks reviewer 3 for this precious suggestion. A detailed description has been added in the materials and methods section at lines from 92 to 98 and in results and discussion at lines 116 – 118.
Rev 3: Line 79, there is no Figure 1 that appeared in the manuscript.
Answer: the figure was in the supplementary materials and we are sorry that was missing in the text. we apologize for this inconvenience. We have added the fig. 1 in the text. Please see line 78.
Rev 3: Some grammatical mistakes and typos are listed as follows: Line 110, please revise the “between 40 and 60% …..” as “between 40% and 60% …..”. Also, Line 111, please revise the “between 50 and 55% …..” as “between 50% and 55% …..”.
Answer: done, thanks. Please see line 141 and 142
Rev 3: Line 53, please revise the “This strategy involve …..” This strategy involves …..”.
Answer: done, thanks. Please see line 52
Rev 3: Line 64, please revise the “This allows to remove pollutants …..” as “This allows removing pollutants …..”.
Answer: done, thanks. Please see line 62
Rev 3: Line 81, please revise the “This allows to the machine …..” as “This allows the machine ….. ”.
Answer: done, thanks. Please see line 85
Rev 3: Line 94, please verify the “mixed every two moth to allows aerobic fermentation …..” is correct.
Answer: done, thanks.
Rev 3: Line 97, please revise the “every three month (for a total of six month)” as “every three months (for a total of six months)”.
Answer: done, thanks. Please see lines 107-108
Rev 3: Line 109 and 112, please revise the “Table 1 show …..” as “Table 1 shows …..”.
Answer: done, thanks. Please see lines 119, 144, and 156.
Rev 3: Line 111, please revise the “As a results, according …..” as “As the results, according …..” or “As a result, according …..”.
Answer: done, thanks. Please see line 143
Rev 3: Line 130, please revise the “labelled” as “labeled”.
Answer: done, thanks. Please see line 172.
Rev 3: Line 135, please revise the “For this reasons, …..” as “For these reasons, …..”.
Answer: done, thanks. Please see line 178.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you, the reviewer's comments have been taken into account in the new version of the manuscript. Please change (line 81) Fig. 1 to Figure 1.
