Comparison of the Techno-Economic and Environmental Assessment of Hydrodynamic Cavitation and Mechanical Stirring Reactors for the Production of Sustainable Hevea brasiliensis Ethyl Ester

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript titled "Comparison of the Techno-Economic and Environmental Assessment of Hydrodynamic Cavitation and Mechanical Stirring Reactors for the Production of Sustainable Hevea brasiliensis Ethyl Ester" is a valuable contribution to the field, but some adjustments are needed to strengthen the impact and accessibility of the manuscript.

1.    Please provide a more detailed explanation of the motivation behind choosing Hevea brasiliensis ethyl ester as the target product and why the comparison of hydrodynamic cavitation and mechanical stirring reactors is particularly relevant in this context.

2.    Additional information on specific parameters and conditions used in the reactors is necessary for reproducibility.

3.    Provide more details on the economic analysis, including initial capital costs, operating costs, and the basis for the cost calculations.

4.    Elaborate the environmental impact categories considered and any assumptions made during the assessment.

5.    Direct comparison between hydrodynamic cavitation and mechanical stirring reactors is needed.

6.    Highlight key differences in terms of product yield, purity, energy consumption, and environmental impact.

7.    How might industries or researchers use this information to make decisions about reactor technology?

8.    Provide sensitivity analyses to validate the robustness of the findings.

9.    Conclude the manuscript with a section on future research 

Proofread the manuscript for grammar and language to improve overall readability

Author Response

Find attached the response to the Reviewer 1"s comment.

Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript aims to provide the techno-economic assessment of two methods, namely hydrodynamic cavitation and mechanical stirring reactors for the production of rubber seed oil biodiesel. The study tends to contribute to the techno-economic and environmental assessment of the biodiesel production field using rubber seed oil. However, the manuscript is not well-written, where the structure should be reorganized for better understanding and the significance of the study should be emphasized. A revision will be needed prior to consideration for publication. Hope the following comments serve to polish the manuscript.

1. The title can be improved, where a more general and common term can be used.

2. Abbreviation should be elaborated at its first mention in the text. Please take note of all the format and spacing.

3. The presentation of the manuscript should be improved, eg: paragraph formatting, typing errors and figure values.

4. How do you ensure the energy efficiency is 100% for both HC and MS processes for Fig 6&7?

5. A lot of analysis seems to have been carried out, but discussion on which method is preferable from the techno-economic and environmental aspects was not included.

6. More discussion on the viability and recommended process should be included.

Revision of the manuscript is needed.

Author Response

Find attached the responses to Reviewer 2's comments.

Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript describes comparison of the techno-economic and environmental assessment of hydrodynamic cavitation and mechanical stirring reactors for the production of sustainable Hevea brasiliensis ethyl ester.
1. Abstract - Introduction too long. 
2. Introduction
- line 77, no citation?
-  Introduction, Enthusiasm, novelty, aim of the research too long. Since this is research article, the section 1.1 needs to be combine with section 1.0. - How about Table 1? Table 1 shows that the manuscript is a review paper? or should be put as appendix?
- Discuss national/international policy that supports research. i.e. SDG2030, etc.
3. Materials and methods
- Cite all equations used for this study
- Table 3 - how you decide the economic assumptions and evaluation parameters? Any references?
4. Results and Discussion
- Why no references/citation in text starts from Introduction section
i.e. Line 503 Gholami et al., Line 569 Chuah et al., Line 668 Blanco-Marigorta et al. . etc. Check throughout manuscript.
- Provide standard deviation for results.
- overall, It is suggested to include discussion on circular economy and role of stakeholders, levels on interactions that support research. 
5. Conclusion - too long, make it a paragraph.
6. References - major concern here. The manuscript need to be proofedit, link all cited references in text.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

The responses to the issues raised by Reviewer 3 uploaded therein.

Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript has merits for its publication. However, following issues need to be addressed before its acceptance.

1.     A Table of abbreviation is to be given for better understanding and follow up.

2.     A detailed list of chemicals used is to be provided in the materials and method section.

3.     In Figure 1, it is suggested to incorporate ethyl group (C₂H₅) instead of R^/.

4.     Why authors have selected KOH as catalyst for this study? Why other regenerable catalyst were not used?

5.     Authors are suggested to incorporate a section of advantages and disadvantages of hydrodynamic cavitation and mechanical stirring reactors for the production of biodiesel.

6.     The conclusion is too long, it could be minimized.

7.     Throughout the manuscript, it is seen that authors have not cited the references though list of references is added at the end.

Needs modification

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Attached therein is the rebuttal for the reviewer 4's comment.

Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have taken into account all of my previous comments and have made the necessary revisions to address them. I have reviewed the revised manuscript, and I am pleased to report that they have adequately addressed all of my concerns.

The changes made have significantly improved the overall quality of the manuscript. I now have no further concerns regarding this submission.

Author Response

The Authors appreciate Reviewer 1 for finding our novel submission valuable and some adjustments have been made to strengthen the impact and accessibility of the manuscript. The texts in light blue colour showing the adjustments adjustment made

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall the revision is satisfactory. Some minor revision will be needed to double check the typing error, and presentation of the figures. The future research section should be restructured. 

Author Response

The Authors appreciate reviewer 2 for finding our revision  satisfactory.

Some minor revision will be needed to double check the typing error, and presentation of the figures. Also, The revisions are indicated with texts in green and yellow colour on the manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Manuscript is improved significantly. Accept.

Author Response

The Authors appreciate the reviewer 4 for detecting that our study is interesting, has been improved significantly and suggesting acceptance of our Manuscript 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf