Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions to improve the article, I attach the response point by point

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

It is a wonderful presentation, for which still it needs some more polishing as per the following suggestions:

1. The introduction of the present form is very decent and still needs some more information on all the other biomass studies as mentioned in the following literature: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.128339.

2. There are some grammatical and typo errors which need to be rechecked in the revised version.

3. Authors mentioned about Langmuir.... model in this manuscript, but the complete explanation about the base model is highly missing.

4. The result and discussions reported in the section-3 are not genuine and clear. Authors need to recheck them and make it clear in the revised version of the manuscript.

5. Conclusions need to be modified as per the above suggestions in the revised manuscript  

 

Typo and Grammatical errors need to be rechecked 

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions to improve the article, I attach the response point by point

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the present work, Gaone-Cumbicos and coworkers simulated the gasification of glucose as proxy of banana biomass. The work is interesting. However, the following points should be addressed before moving toward its publication

·       Glucose gasification is a well-documented topic in the literature (see 10.1016/j.supflu.2015.09.022): for this reason, the introduction should clearly explain the novelty of the present work

·       In the introduction, a wider state of the art should be reported, taking into consideration other hydrogen-producing technologies starting from sugars like aqueous phase reforming (see 10.1016/j.cattod.2021.06.002, 10.1016/j.cattod.2019.09.031)

·       It is not clear to me the nature of the catalyst: please report this information

·       The quality of the figures (e.g., 3, 4, 5) should be improved

·       Figure 6: how it is possible that hydrogen does not start from 0, being a product? I expect a maximum at least

·       A comparison with previous works present in literature, both modelling and experimental, should be reported to evaluate the robustness of the results, apart from the reference to the H2/CO ratio

·       English level should be improved because of many different mistakes (e.g., in the conclusions there is a repetition in the sentences)

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions to improve the article, I attach the response point by point

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The content is significantly improved after the review. 

English is much better

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript was improved and it can be accepted in the present form