A Technoeconomic Resilience and Exergy Analysis Approach for the Evaluation of a Vaccine Production Plant in North-East Colombia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The data for the streams regarding chemical composition and etc. should be given.
The calculation of Chemical exergy must be shown.
process description should be given prior to results and discussion.
"However, the net present value is slightly lower than the net current value generated in the production process of agar from red algae (568 MM)" What is the importance of this? İrrelevant?
"However, the net present value is slightly lower than the net current value generated in the production process of agar from red algae (568 MM)" What is the importance of this? İrrelevant?
"which is high compared to sulfuric acid production (44.7%) reported by Mabrouk et al." What is the importance of this? İrrelevant?
"is high compared to the crude palm and kernel oil production (18%)"What is the importance of this? İrrelevant?
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
We would like to respectfully thank the reviewer 1 for his/her very accurate and eloquent comments, which have enabled us to improve the quality of this article. Below we give detailed answers to all the comments made.
- The data for the streams regarding chemical composition and etc. should be given.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, the data for the streams regarding chemical composition is now shown in table 5 and table 6.
- The calculation of Chemical exergy must be shown.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, the calculation of Chemical exergy must be shown in table 7.
- Process description should be given prior to results and discussion.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, the "Process Description" section was placed before the "Results and Discussion" section, please see section 2.1.
- "However, the net present value is slightly lower than the net current value generated in the production process of agar from red algae (568 MM)" What is the importance of this? İrrelevant?
Answer: Thanks for your comment, considering the lack of information in the literature regarding economic indicators for this kind of processes, the authors sought to compare the economic resilience of the vaccine production process in north-east Colombia with other bioprocess available in literature. However, we are agree with the reviewer that comparison of bioprocess with different feedstocks, stages and products is not relevant for this study, taking into account the comment of the reviewer, this comparison was omitted, since the authors agree that they are not directly comparable.
- "Which is high compared to sulfuric acid production (44.7%) reported by Mabrouk et al." What is the importance of this? İrrelevant?
Answer: Considering the lack of information in the literature regarding economic indicators for this kind of processes, the authors sought to compare the economic resilience of the vaccine production process in north-east Colombia with other bioprocess available in literature. However, we are agree with the reviewer that comparison of bioprocess with different feedstocks, stages and products is not relevant for this study, taking into account the comment of the reviewer, this comparison was omitted, since the authors agree that they are not directly comparable.
- "Is high compared to the crude palm and kernel oil production (18%)"What is the importance of this? İrrelevant?
Answer: Considering the lack of information in the literature regarding economic indicators for this kind of processes, the authors sought to compare the economic resilience of the vaccine production process in north-east Colombia with other bioprocess available in literature. However, we are agree with the reviewer that comparison of bioprocess with different feedstocks, stages and products is not relevant for this study, taking into account the comment of the reviewer, this comparison was omitted, since the authors agree that they are not directly comparable.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The subject and research topic of the researchers is extremely interesting. Therefore, I would like to thank the researchers for taking part in an important project. There are many deficiencies and corrections that need to be completed in the study. In its current form, I believe that the work is not suitable for publication. If the following items are fully taken into account, the study may be revised.
1) It should be added references for all equations in data reduction section. Besides, it should be clearly stated what all parameters represent in all equations. (For example; NPV, mRM, itr, Ci, WCI, etc….).
2) A total of 25 citations is too few for an article to be published in a SCI level. Therefore, the literature review is insufficient. Similar studies, especially in the last 2 years, should be carefully examined.
3) Spelling errors and grammar in the article should be reviewed. (For example; ????????????? = ??????,?? − ∑??????,??t Eq.(20) )
4) It must be clearly stated the novelty of the study in abstract and last of introduction section.
5) There is not nomenclature section in the study. Please add the section including variables and abbreviations
6) The handling of the study and the structure of the article are quite complex. Working algorithm and flow chart are not specified.
7) The introduction shows that the subject of the study is not sufficiently well researched. Researchers turned to the vaccine and its production facilities in Colombia. However, since the production, distribution and use of this vaccine is of universal importance, researchers need to conduct a more in-depth study. It is recommended that they examine the vaccine production facilities in different continents and countries and similar analyzes in international scope.
8) Equation 1 has no equality expression. In addition, all equations should be given in the order in which they were obtained and used. Also, the units of all parameters in the equation must be added.
9) It was stated ‘’A Technoeconomic resilience approach was proposed and performed to analyze the influence of certain variables on the economic indicators of the process.’’ at 62 and 63 line in the 2.1. Technoeconomic analysis section. What are certain variables in here. Please detail.
10) It was stated ‘The total capital investment (TCI) was calculated using the values reported by Contreras et al. [7] in the methodology proposed by Peters et al. [11], as well as the Total Product Cost (TPC).’’ at 64 and 65 line in the 2.1. Technoeconomic analysis section. What are the values in here. Please detail.
11) Before moving on to the sub-headings of the Results and Discussion section, an introduction should be written about the findings to be presented in the study.
12) The process description section should be given before the Results and Discussion section. Since vaccine production process is important in the study, please process steps mut be in detailed. All steps and their input and output parameters should be given details.
13) In the sub-title of the 3.2. technoeconomic evaluation section, only 3.2.1.technoeconomic resilience is included in the study. Is there section 3.2.2 ? If there is only one subtitle, please combine 3.2. technoeconomic evaluation section and 3.2.1.technoeconomic resilience.
14) It was not specified for what period the Profit After Taxes (PAT) (USD) is gain in Table 5.
15) It was stated ‘’In the production of influenza vaccinations, profit after taxes was higher than the value reported by Tull [19] for an Indian vaccines factory. The return period of the investment is less than one year. This period is low compared to bio-hydrogen production from empty palm fruit bunches PBP [20].’’ between 138 and 141 line in the 3.2. Technoeconomic evaluation section. This comparison with the literature should be presented graphically and with reference.
16) It was stated ‘’The project's net present value is high compared to Bio-Hydrogen Production from Empty Palm Fruit Bunches, whose net current value is 19,553,400 USD [20].’’ between 205 and 207 line in the 3.2.1. Technoeconomic resilience section. This comparison with the literature should be presented in Figure 7 graphically and with reference.
17) What is column with orange colour in Figure 9. Please, specify in graphics just as irreversibility and exergy of waste.
18) For the accuracy and reliability of the results, compare the exergy efficiencies in all stages in figure 10 with similar studies in the literature.
19) The article has similarities study with entitle '' Inherent Safety Analysis and Sustainability Evaluation of a Vaccine Production Topology in North-East Colombia ''. Reference is not made to this above work in the reference section. Please reduce the similarity rate.
20) There are many stages in the study. Please elaborate the Sankey diagram for most of the data obtained in the exergy analysis. Researchers are advised to review the following studies.
*Hybrid power energy system optimization by exergoeconomic and environmental models for an enhanced policy and sustainable management of exergy resources https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.116171;
*Energy, exergy, economic and environmental analysis of a running integrated anaerobic digester-combined heat and power system in a municipal wastewater treatment plan https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.07.155;
*Exergetic, exergoeconomic, and exergoenvironmental analyzes of an existing industrial olefin plant https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102175
21) It was stated ‘’285,176,100 t/y are produced in the plant.’’ in second sentence of the conclusion section. What is produced ?
22) It was stated ‘’ The results showed that the overall efficiency is 93%, which is high compared to the crude palm and kernel oil production (18%) [24]’’ at line 279 and 280 in the conclusion section. 93% is the overall efficiency of what ?
Author Response
Reviewer 2
We would like to respectfully thank the reviewer 2 for his/her very accurate and eloquent comments, which have enabled us to improve the quality of this article. Below we give detailed answers to all the comments made.
The subject and research topic of the researchers is extremely interesting. Therefore, I would like to thank the researchers for taking part in an important project. There are many deficiencies and corrections that need to be completed in the study. In its current form, I believe that the work is not suitable for publication. If the following items are fully taken into account, the study may be revised.
- It should be added references for all equations in data reduction section. Besides, it should be clearly stated what all parameters represent in all equations. (For example; NPV, mRM, itr, Ci, WCI, etc….).
Answer: Thanks for your comment, references for all equations were added for each one of them and parameter of all equations were defined.
- A total of 25 citations is too few for an article to be published in a SCI level. Therefore, the literature review is insufficient. Similar studies, especially in the last 2 years, should be carefully examined.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, 11 new references were added.
- Spelling errors and grammar in the article should be reviewed. (For example; ?????????????= ??????,?? − ∑??????,??t (20))
Answer: Thanks to the reviewer for letting us know about this mistake. All equations were reviewed, spelling and grammar errors were fixed.
- It must be clearly stated the novelty of the study in abstract and last of introduction section.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, to the authors' knowledge, the vaccine production process has not been evaluated under the concept of exergy or economic resilience in order to detect the behavior of the plant in the technical-economic environment. And none study of exergy and economic resilience has been performed for while processes located in north-east Colombia. Taking this into account, abstract and last of introduction section were modified as follows.
Abstract: For the first time, exergetic analysis and technical-economic resilience are performed as combined decision-making tools for the evaluation of an influenza vaccine production plant.
Introduction: In this work, exergy and techno-economic resilience analyses were combined to evaluate an influenza vaccine production process in a plant located in north-east Colombia.
- There is not nomenclature section in the study. Please add the section including variables and abbreviations.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, a nomenclature section was added with the abbreviations corresponding to the exergetic and economic resilience evaluation parameters.
- The handling of the study and the structure of the article are quite complex. Working algorithm and flow chart are not specified.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, a working diagram was made to a better understanding of the methodological structure. Please see figure 2.
- The introduction shows that the subject of the study is not sufficiently well researched. Researchers turned to the vaccine and its production facilities in Colombia. However, since the production, distribution and use of this vaccine is of universal importance, researchers need to conduct a more in-depth study. It is recommended that they examine the vaccine production facilities in different continents and countries and similar analyzes in international scope.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, the reviewer is right in his observation related to the lack of information and the fact that the subject is not sufficiently researched. The present article has a local scope (north-east Colombia), since the project that financed this research requires this location. A study with a higher scope, which also includes environmental parameters, is currently being carried out with funding from another research project and is expected to be submitted in the next few months.
- Equation 1 has no equality expression. In addition, all equations should be given in the order in which they were obtained and used. Also, the units of all parameters in the equation must be added.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, all equations were reviewed, spelling and grammar errors were fixed. Equations were rearranged in the order in which they were used, in addition units of all parameters were included in nomenclature section.
- It was stated ‘’A Technoeconomic resilience approach was proposed and performed to analyze the influence of techonomic variables as on the economic indicators of the process.’’at 62 and 63 line in the 2.1. Technoeconomic analysis section. What are certain variables in here. Please detail.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, technical-economic variables are vaccine selling price, production capacity, raw materials cost, normalized variable operating costs and economic indicators are Payback Period, Return on Investment, Net Present Value, Annual Income. Taking into account your suggestion, both technical-economic variables and economic indicators of the process were described in section 2.2.
- It was stated ‘The total capital investment (TCI) was calculated using the values reported by Contreras et al. [7] using the methodology proposed by Peters et al. [11], as well as the Total Product Cost (TPC).’’ at 64 and 65 line in the 2.1. Technoeconomic analysis section. What are the values in here. Please detail.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, the values used correspond to the price of equipment, land, piping, electrical installations, instrumentation, buildings, services facilities, yard improvements, engineering and supervision, construction expenses, legal expenses, contractors’ fee, contingency, working capital investment and start up investment.
- Before moving on to the sub-headings of the Results and Discussion section, an introduction should be written about the findings to be presented in the study.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, a paragraph was added to introduce the results section.
The energy and technical-economic resilience assessments were developed taking into account the operating conditions and economic indicators for the year 2021. The exclusive parameters for the technical-economic evaluation and exclusive parameters for the exergy evaluation allowed generating technical-economic resilience and exergy evaluation results regardless of their previous exclusivity as independent variable for the studies, for example, the utilities required for the economic evaluation also allow exergy evaluation of the process. The results are shown below.
- The process description section should be given before the Results and Discussion section. Since vaccine production process is important in the study, please process steps mut be in detailed. All steps and their input and output parameters should be given details.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, the process description section was placed before the Results and Discussion section. The detailed information, as well as its input and output parameter steps were previously published by authors in "Environmental Evaluation of a Vaccine Production Plant in North-east Colombia".
- In the sub-title of the 3.2. technoeconomic evaluation section, only 3.2.1.technoeconomic resilience is included in the study. Is there section 3.2.2 ? If there is only one subtitle, please combine 3.2. technoeconomic evaluation section and 3.2.1.technoeconomic resilience.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, sections 3.2 and 3.2.1 were combined as recommended by the reviewer, resulting in a new section entitled "3.2. Technoeconomic resilience evaluation".
- It was not specified for what period the Profit After Taxes (PAT) (USD) is gain in Table 5.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, the typing error has been corrected, please see table 4.
- It was stated ‘’In the production of influenza vaccinations, profit after taxes was higher than the value reported by Tull [19] for an Indian vaccines factory. The payback period of the investment is less than one year. This period is low compared to bio-hydrogen production from empty palm fruit bunches PBP [20].’’ between 138 and 141 line in the 3.2. Technoeconomic evaluation section. This comparison with the literature should be presented graphically and with reference.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, this comparison was eliminated because the processes are not comparable since feedstock, process stages and products are different, and taking into account the comments the other reviewer.
- It was stated ‘’The project's net present value is high compared to Bio-Hydrogen Production from Empty Palm Fruit Bunches, whose net current value is 19,553,400 USD [20].’’between 205 and 207 line in the 3.2.1. Technoeconomic resilience section. This comparison with the literature should be presented in Figure 7 graphically and with reference.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, this comparison was eliminated because the processes are not comparable since feedstock, process stages and products are different, and taking into account the comments the other reviewer.
- What is column with orange colour in Figure 9. Please, specify in graphics just as irreversibility and exergy of waste.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, the figure was modified, it is possible to observe the label of the all columns, please see figure 9.
- For the accuracy and reliability of the results, compare the exergy efficiencies in all stages in figure 10 with similar studies in the literature.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, the exergetic efficiency of the process was not compared with other similar processes because there are no reports of this type of research in the literature, for this reason we emphasize the novelty of the study in this aspect.
- The article has similarities study with entitle ''Inherent Safety Analysis and Sustainability Evaluation of a Vaccine Production Topology in North-East Colombia''. Reference is not made to this above work in the reference section. Please reduce the similarity rate.
Answer: Thanks for your comment, unfortunately, the article in mention was published first and is based on specific results of the present process. The authors made some modifications in the paper to reduce the similarity as shown in the process description section.
- There are many stages in the study. Please elaborate the Sankey diagram for most of the data obtained in the exergy analysis. Researchers are advised to review the following studies.
*Hybrid power energy system optimization by exergoeconomic and environmental models for an enhanced policy and sustainable management of exergy resources https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.116171;
*Energy, exergy, economic and environmental analysis of a running integrated anaerobic digester-combined heat and power system in a municipal wastewater treatment plan https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.07.155;
*Exergetic, exergoeconomic, and exergoenvironmental analyzes of an existing industrial olefin plant https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102175
Answer: Thanks for your comment, a Sankey diagram was developed as recommended by the reviewer. Please see figure 11.
- It was stated ‘’285,176,100 t/y are produced in the plant.’’ in second sentence of the conclusion section. What is produced?
Answer: Thanks for your comment, a typing error occurred, the vaccine plant production capacity was corrected as noted in all paper.
- It was stated ‘’ The results showed that the overall efficiency is 93%, which is high compared to the crude palm and kernel oil production (18%) [24]’’ at line 279 and 280 in the conclusion section. 93% is the overall efficiency of what?
Answer: Thanks for your comment, 93 % is overall exergy efficiency of the vaccine production process.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper could be accepted in this version
Reviewer 2 Report
Researchers have made up for the shortcomings. The work is eligible for publication as it is.
