Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review is very interesting and well done, giving not only informations on the topic but, above all, applicative perspectives of this research. An unique but important remark: references are not homogeneously cited (names and surnames of the authors, only surnames, et al. instead of the complete list of authors...) and in the text many references are not present due to error (reference source not found). The general evaluation is surely positive.

Author Response

We gratefully thank the Reviewer for his nice opinion of our review.

We again thank the reviewer for having highlighted the typos present in the manuscript and in the reference section. All typos have been corrected in this revisited version and references were formatted according to the Guide for Authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The manuscript which I was asked to read is of review type. It addresses pyrolysis of renewable materials and catalytically related processes. I consider this type of works necessary as they sum up papers focused on narrow problems. Thus it is easier to get so called big picture. The manuscript is properly written. I found few typos and not readable descriptions of the figures. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the paper might be considered for publication providing the minor issues will be addressed.

 

The typos and issues which should be addressed:

Line 98 - Thus, a biorefinery process in which biomass in first converted in – is first converted

139; 170 - Error! Reference source not found.

Fig 2 – descriptions in the figure are to small and thus not readable. The same issue has Fig. 8

Fig. 10 – The axis description is of poor quality. I guess it is placed as an image ––

518 -  biomass washing with water o acids – or acids

548 – chetons – cethons?

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer 2 for his nice opinion on our contribution and for providing important indication on the manuscript: we revised our paper accordingly.

We again thank the reviewer for having highlighted the typos present in the manuscript and in the reference section. All typos have been corrected in this revisited version.

Moreover, since it was not possible to increase the quality Figure 8, it was removed in the revisited version of the manuscript.