Development and Comparative Assessment of Tobacco Waste-Based Composts for Sustainable Agriculture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic related to the valorization of tobacco waste through composting and vermicomposting. The study is relevant to the circular economy and sustainable agriculture, and the experimental comparison of different types of biomass is important. However, in order to meet publication standards, the manuscript requires significant but feasible revisions to improve scientific rigor and transparency.

 

1. At the end of the introduction, it should be clearly stated what the study aims to demonstrate or test, not just compare. A clearly formulated research question or hypothesis will improve the focus of the article.

2. The manuscript does not provide the number of biological replicates for each treatment, nor does it present statistical tests (e.g., ANOVA, significance letters, SD/SE values). This is essential to confirm the observed differences.

3. The description of compost maturity is mainly qualitative “hand test”. Please include temperature profiles over time and describe how moisture was controlled or measured to increase the reproducibility of the methodology.

4. Since tobacco waste may contain bioactive compounds, please explain whether nicotine content or phytotoxicity was measured. If not, please revise the conclusions to clearly indicate this limitation and avoid suggesting confirmed safety for use in food crops.

5. Several paragraphs repeat the same socio-economic motivations. Instead, please focus on explaining why some treatments were more effective than others (e.g., lignin content, microorganism dynamics).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this paper is of great practical significance. Focusing on tobacco waste, which has not been fully studied, aiming at the practical problems such as the lack of soil organic matter and the pollution of tobacco waste in Bangladesh, the composting solution is put forward, which not only realizes the recycling of waste, but also provides organic fertilizer for agriculture, which is in line with the goal of sustainable development. The research framework is reasonable, and the data can support the core conclusion, but there are shortcomings in detail integrity, analysis depth and standardization. By supplementing key information, refining experimental methods, deepening discussion and analysis, and standardizing format language, the academic quality and application value of the paper can be significantly improved, providing a more reliable theoretical basis for the resource utilization of tobacco waste and the sustainable agricultural development in Bangladesh, but some problems in the paper need to be improved.

Introduction

1. It is mentioned that tobacco waste containing nicotine and other components is not suitable for direct landfill, but it is not clear whether these components will degrade in the composting process, and whether there is residual risk in the final composting product, which may affect the integrity of composting safety assessment.
2. The description of the specific output and existing disposal methods of tobacco waste in Bangladesh is rather general and lacks the latest data support.

Materials and Methods

1. 2.3. Preparation of the Compost ",the column headings in Table 1(C-N ratio adjustment) are in confusion and the target C-N ratio of each compost group after adjustment is not stated.
2. "2.4. Maturity Determination" is not clear about the specific duration and data recording frequency of conventional compost temperature monitoring, and the model and operation standard of the testing instrument for analyzing the physical and chemical properties of earthworm compost are not mentioned.

Results

1. Only the data differences are presented, because of this in-depth analysis.

Discussion

1. The limitations of tobacco waste composting are discussed shallowly, and concrete and feasible solutions should be put forward.
2. We should compare the differences of tobacco waste composting research in other regions, and lack of horizontal analysis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focuses on the effects of traditional compost and vermicompost of tobacco using vegetables as a control at different maturation durations. The idea is interesting. However, the data collected in this study would be considered as a preliminary experiment, lacking sufficient control and parameters measured, yet would not be ready to be published in Sustainability. Authors are suggested to re-conduct the experiment again with better control, data visualization, and statistical analysis to publish in a scientific journal. Authors are strongly suggested to be advised by their academic advisor to understand how research should be properly done and original research article written. These reasons lead to the suggestion of a major revision of this manuscript, with further descriptions below.

1. L19-26, it is understandable that authors try to present both vegetable and tobacco vermicompost. However, these statements are more confusing when it comes to a conclusive narrative. Authors are highly suggested to emphasize the tobacco results, which is the main objective of this study, rather than the control (vegetable).
2. 5L1, "traditional"
3. Section 2.1, please justify why this annual weather data is important. Is the compost and vermicompost setting affected by the weather? I have not seen the link between this to the experiment yet.
4. P3Section 2.2, it would be better to get the specific info about the provider, if they allow.
5. Section 2.3, based on the result authors have not mentioned that the initial organic carbon has been controlled. Authors may need to justify that here.
6. Table 1 is indeed very confusing. Please present the table with column 1) Co-substrate, 2) Mass ratio, 3) Dry mass ratio, 4) C/N ratio. The mass ratio should be 4:1 as mentioned. The substrate characteristics (e.g., pH, Alkalinity, TS, VS, TOC, TKN) and C/N ratio can be presented in a separate table to make this more understandable.
7. Figure 2 can be simply described in a paragraph and is not necessary.
8. Section 2.4, first paragraph, could authors make sure that the measurement is done with the thermometer, not just a research hand? I do not think it is hard to find one.
9. Section 2.4 par2, please make sure to mention all controlling factors that might affect vermicompost and traditional compost, such as time and temperature.
10. Section 2.5, "Chemical analyses"
11. Figure 3, since the nutrient has been determined from each substrate, please use Sankey diagrams to illustrate the reduction/loss of each composition, 1 diagram for each type. Add error bars to all bars. Is it possible to measure these over a time course, such as every 5 or 10 days? Also, change "compost types" to "composting conditions" throughout the MS.
12. Figure 4 is not necessary; duration can be mentioned in the Figure 3 footnote/description.
13. Section 3.3, please provide the rationale for why vermicompost has three times higher organic carbon. Did authors control the initial organic carbon throughout the experiment? This is really critical to publish a research article. This leads to issues of research integrity. Authors may need to re-conduct the experiment with better control. In case the authors still want to compare with different initial organic matter percent reduction can be applied and properly visualized.
14. Table 3, please maintain a good consistency when writing an article. Authors may want to check with the advisor before submitting the MS to the Journal. Again, use Sankey diagram for nutrient contents.
15. Section 4, too many Again to start the sentence. This might be too intense for the reader.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors’ thorough revisions and detailed responses to all my previous comments. The manuscript has been substantially improved in clarity and scientific rigor. I have no further comments or suggestions.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer for taking the time to review our revised manuscript and for the encouraging remarks regarding the improvements made. We are grateful for your positive feedback and are pleased that the revised version meets your expectations. Your constructive comments during the initial review stage specially on the statistical analysis and compost maturity determination process were instrumental in strengthening the manuscript’s overall quality and coherence.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The MS has improved after the revision process and is almost ready for publication. Only a minor comment: Fig. 4, use the same color code as Fig. 2

Author Response

Thank you for guiding throughout the entire process of revision and putting some wonderful idea about the upgradation of figures and analysis. This helped author to improve the manuscript quality a lot and gain some outstanding knowledge on visualizations. Thank you once again for the suggestion on Figure 4. The Figure 4 has been revised to use the same color-coding scheme as Figure 2 to maintain visual consistency across figures as per the suggestion.

Please find the attachment as for your kind reference.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf