Spent Coffee Grounds, Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria, and Medicinal Plant Waste: The Biofertilizing Effect of High-Value Compost

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper was comprehensively done, but the research implications and innovations require further summarization.

The Results and discussion, the important functions of microorganisms were not emphasized and the pictures were vague.

 

This paper should be condensed properly, the article is loose and illogical, and the discussion and analysis were fragmented.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language required

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a research of interest on the topic of composting and the quality of the compost generated.

As suggestions:

- Detail more the characteristics of the composting test

- How much waste is used?

- Add a photo of the containers used

- was the temperature during the composting process monitored? Add the data.

 

In item 3.2.2

Demonstrate the effect of the inoculum in accelerating the composting process. The P treatment responded after 19-26 days, while in treatments using bacteria as inoculum, activity was already observed from the beginning.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I don't have much qualifications to judge the quality of English. But I noticed some inconsistencies. Therefore, I suggest a final review of the language before publication.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the topic is quite current, at this moment, I do not believe the manuscript is apt to be recommended for publication. For example, it is simply impossible to evaluate what exactly the compost is with the current description, and there does not seem to be real replications of the compost since it was produced a single time for each mix, and it is impossible to know what is the mixed plant waste, or have any information about the strains used, except their codes and identification, although some more information is supplied in the results. 

It is not possible to understand the choice of a means comparison test for this kind of data and data presentation in the results section is not conducive to a better understanding of the results

The results section explains why a given method was used, which does not correspond to the purpose of the section. 

While you consider three subsamples from each compost to be independent samples for statistical analysis, that is simply not true, since any problem, for example with the bacterial culture initially used, would affect the full batch.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend a very thorough revision of the writing since it is very hard to understand at the moment, to the point it compromises the manuscript. 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript with the title “Spent coffee grounds, plant growth promoting bacteria and medicinal plant waste: The biofertilizing effect of high-value compost”, monitored for 3 months the composting process or plant-based (unnamed medicinal plants “waste” and coffee grounds) with an addition of bacteria inoculant gradient.

General remarks

To date, the composting processes are pretty much standardised. There is huge industry for this. There is a wide diversity of composts, destined to different types of horticultural and agricultural uses, including certified composts. The authors fail to underline in the introduction or results/conclusions the optimal use for the compost they tried to obtain, this is minus. There should be more detailed analysis for the end result regarding the parameters that would clearly help to determine the potential destination of use for this compost. Otherwise I do not see the clear usefulness of this study. Secondly, during compositing usually (as current practice) it is made use also of a N source addition to speed the process, and I do not understand what was the logic of the experiment and what they actually wanted to test. How composting works without the usual N addition? Please see also below some important observations. 

Material and method

Plant-based materials at point 0 - I consider very important and highly relevant for decomposition dynamic to know all about them. The medicinal plants waste is not detailed, what form are they – fresh cut whole plants or what kind of “waste” are we talking about here? Medicinal plants can have an extremely wide variation in their composition and this makes this information pivotal, which medicinal plants were found in the waste material used? In spite of wonderful results obtained by the authors, how can anyone apply this method if they do not know the base material composition for this experiment? It would also make difficult to compare other results against these.

 

On what basis authors elected these specific parameters to monitor and why they were considered sufficient? How this parameters connect to the aim of the study?

 

Results

During composting process, different groups of microorganisms have higher activity, and this microbial activity succession is a fact well-documented in literature and manipulated when producing composts. The introduction should have resolved this state-of-the-art knowledge on microbial dynamic and mineralisation dynamic by explaining nicely what happens during OM decomposition.

Figure 3, vertical axis could start at 3, in order to make more visible the differences. Also, the figure/columns should be made a bit wider for better visibility. Figure 4, vertical axis could start at 4, in order to make more visible the differences. Also, the figure/column should be made a bit wider for better visibility.

Results - Phytotoxicity of composting material

I understand from M&M section that authors used some protocol. But to me personally, the mineralisation process which obviously is gradual (a correlation of GI with OM would have been interesting) could have also potentially explain this. Since detailed chemical analysis is not available, the claim at Line 374 that “phytotoxic matter release” was to blame for GI reduction, has not data and scientific support in this manuscript. Otherwise, authors shall define what “phytotoxic matter” means, or did they identified the phytotoxic compounds and studied their dynamic and then further correlated them with germination? I see no evidence in this manuscript for this.

 

Discussion is very little and unsatisfying.

 

Conclusions should mirror the clear objectives that should have been given at the end of the introduction, very clear point by point (conclusions expressed in the same order as objectives were given). Objectives are steps proposed for reaching an aim. Objectives give the structure of the results and conclusions, which makes it very easy for the reader to follow the narrative presented.

References

Out of 31 references, 2 are from 2022 and 2 from 2023. The rest are older. Some sources are very old (more than 5-10 years old).

Best regards.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English has a moderate quality. Both grammar and syntax improvements are needed. Fine English style could also be improved.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There was no specific analysis and modification of microbial action. The research implications and innovations require further summarization.

The Results and discussion, the important functions of microorganisms were not emphasized and the pictures were vague.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

There was no specific analysis and modification of microbial action. The research implications and innovations require further summarization.

The Results and discussion, the important functions of microorganisms were not emphasized and the pictures were vague.

AUTHORS: We thank the Reviewer #1 for considering our manuscript and for the constructive suggestions for improving the manuscript quality. All questions asked are carefully clarified with corresponsive answers, whereby each change made was appropriately marked in red in the Revised Manuscript.

In our manuscript, part 3.1. in the results and discussion, we wanted to emphasize the characteristics of microorganisms by referring to our previous research (23), as a general discussion. We did not perform additional analyzes of microorganisms, since we examined their compatibility in previous research. From this point of view, we believe that it is necessary to transfer part 3.1. Analysis of the compatibility of strains in the material and method section, which we corrected in the paper.

Please, see page 3, lines 132-138 in the Resubmitted Manuscript.

 Minor editing of English language required

AUTHORS: The text has been thoroughly double-checked and edited by an English speaking person. All mistakes noticed in the manuscript were corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the manuscript has improved, my main concern continues the same, since you treat subsamples of a same material as completely independent samples, which I do not think is valid. Therefore, I will not change my recommendation from the earlier one.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have not checked the writing of this version, since my main point has not been changed. 

Author Response

Although the manuscript has improved, my main concern continues the same, since you treat subsamples of a same material as completely independent samples, which I do not think is valid. Therefore, I will not change my recommendation from the earlier one.

AUTHORS: We also thank the Reviewer #3 for considering our manuscript and for the highly helpful recommendations. We have addressed all issues related to corrections and suggestions which highly contributed to the improved manuscript quality. Also, all questions asked are clarified with corresponsive answers, whereby each change made was appropriately marked in red in the Revised Manuscript.

The method of sampling subsamples of a same material for further analysis is now more precisely defined in the text.

Please, see page 4, lines 161-163 and 165 in the Resubmitted Manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

AUTHORS: The text has been thoroughly double-checked and edited by an English speaking person. All mistakes noticed in the manuscript were corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I accept the responses to all the comments, and these convince me that authors paid careful attention to the logic of the experiment.

I have no further comments.

Best regards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fine English style improvements are recommended.

Author Response

I accept the responses to all the comments, and these convince me that authors paid careful attention to the logic of the experiment.

Fine English style improvements are recommended.

AUTHORS: The authors would like to thank the Reviewer #4 on professional and helpful comments and for accepting all responses to made in our manuscript.

 The text has been thoroughly double-checked and edited by an English speaking person. All mistakes noticed in the manuscript were corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper's implications and innovations require further summarization.

The Results and discussion, the important functions of microorganisms were not emphasized. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

The Results and discussion, the important functions of microorganisms were not emphasized.

AUTHORS: We thank the Reviewer #1 for considering our manuscript and for the constructive suggestions for improving the manuscript quality. All questions asked are carefully clarified with corresponding answers, whereby each change made was appropriately marked in red in the Revised Manuscript.

Corrected, according to Reviewer's comment. Please, see page 7, lines 290-301 in the Resubmitted Manuscript.

 Minor editing of English language required

AUTHORS: The text has been thoroughly double-checked and edited by an English speaking person. All mistakes noticed in the manuscript were corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf