Chemical Characteristics Analysis and Quality Assessment of Reed-Based Spent Mushroom Substrate

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The manuscript entitled “Chemical characteristics analysis and quality assessment is necessary before choosing a utilization way of spent mushroom substrate” authored by Li and Wang reports original research findings pertaining to comparative evaluation of three spent mushroom substrate in terms of chemical differences. The MS falls well within the scope and aims of the journal and might be interesting to wide readers of Agronomy. Previously, I had reviewed this contribution that has been significantly improved by the authors but still, there are numerous flaws that requisite the attention of authors in order to convey the findings to readers in an explicit manner.

TITLE

The current title in no way presents a representative statement and must be amended keeping in view the essence of briefness and attractiveness.

ABSTRCAT

“The spent mushroom substrate (SMS) is solid waste from mushroom cultivation. The utilization of SMS has changed from the traditional incineration and landfill to circular economic utilization. However, it remains a challenging task to establish a sustainable avenue for SMS disposal. Chemical characteristics analysis and quality assessment is necessary before choosing a utilization way” It is perhaps better to merge these phrases to constitute a single phrased consolidated problem statement. 

“three SMS of Phragmites australis were taken as samples” needs clarity in terms of difference.

“All SMS were acidic” too generalized statement so better to provide range of acidity level at least.

“Therefore, a utilization suggestion was provided: SMS-P.E was fit for secondary cultivation of mushroom; SMS-P.O was fit for feed supplement; SMS-P.C was fit for fertilizer” not clear must be rephrased.

My biggest concern is still, treatments description is nor clear and readers cannot gauge about the employed treatments.

INTRODUCTION

SMS needs elaboration in 1/2 phrases for convenience of general readers.

My prime concern still persists regarding lack of study rationale. It is highly recommended that authors must critically analyze peer-findings on subject matter to highlight research and knowledge gaps in an effective manner. 

Research hypothesis is missing again.

METHODLOGY

It is perhaps better to present in tabular form all protocols and instruments used for carrying out chemical analysis during the course of study along with relevant citations.

“Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to investigate the patterns of categorical parameters assessed using SPSS 17.0. The original variables were transformed into new uncorrelated variables, where each principal component is a linear combination of the original variables” lacks clarity regarding PC1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

DISCUSSION

I suggest authors again reconsider to interpret recorded findings and justify those in the light of peer-findings.

Overall, again rigorous language editing is needed for this manuscript.

Author Response

Dear editor,

Thank you very much for giving us a chance to revise the manuscript. Thanks for your and reviewers’ kindly and the best review comments. We revised it carefully one by one, and checked the English grammar and words spelling. The responding details to comments were showed as following. Blue color parts were responses to the reviewers’ comments. Red color parts were the revised content in the text.

 

 

 

Reviewer 1

 

The manuscript entitled “Chemical characteristics analysis and quality assessment is necessary before choosing a utilization way of spent mushroom substrate” authored by Li and Wang reports original research findings pertaining to comparative evaluation of three spent mushroom substrate in terms of chemical differences. The MS falls well within the scope and aims of the journal and might be interesting to wide readers of Agronomy. Previously, I had reviewed this contribution that has been significantly improved by the authors but still, there are numerous flaws that requisite the attention of authors in order to convey the findings to readers in an explicit manner.

TITLE

1. The current title in no way presents a representative statement and must be amended keeping in view the essence of briefness and attractiveness.

Responses: The title was changed as following:

Chemical characteristics analysis and quality assessment of reed-based spent mushroom substrate

ABSTRCAT

2. “The spent mushroom substrate (SMS) is solid waste from mushroom cultivation. The utilization of SMS has changed from the traditional incineration and landfill to circular economic utilization. However, it remains a challenging task to establish a sustainable avenue for SMS disposal. Chemical characteristics analysis and quality assessment is necessary before choosing a utilization way” It is perhaps better to merge these phrases to constitute a single phrased consolidated problem statement. 

Responses: These sentences were merged to one sentence as following:

Chemical characteristics analysis and quality assessment is necessary before choosing a sustainable utilization way for spent mushroom substrate disposal.

3. “three SMS of Phragmites australis were taken as samples” needs clarity in terms of difference.

Responses: The sentence was changed as following:

Therefore, three varieties SMS of Pleurotus spp. cultivated on reed were taken as samples

4. “All SMS were acidic” too generalized statement so better to provide range of acidity level at least.

Responses: The value of pH was provided after the sentence.

All SMS were acidic, pH was 5.26-5.51.

5. “Therefore, a utilization suggestion was provided: SMS-P.E was fit for secondary cultivation of mushroom; SMS-P.O was fit for feed supplement; SMS-P.C was fit for fertilizer” not clear must be

Responses: The conclusion in the abstract was revised.

Therefore, a utilization suggestion was provided: according to the contents of total carbon and nitrogen, neutral detergent fiber and Ca, SMS of P. eryngii grown on reed could be considered as materials for secondary cultivation of mushroom; based on the parameters of crude protein, amino acids, total sugar, SMS of P. ostreatus was more fit for utilization as feed and fertilizer than that of P. citrinopileatus; SMS of P. citrinopileatus could be used as fertilizer.

6. My biggest concern is still, treatments description is nor clear and readers cannot gauge about the employed treatments.

Responses: Treatments contained one control and three other treatments, we changed the sentence to:

three varieties of Pleurotus spp. cultivated on reed were taken as samples.

 

INTRODUCTION

7. SMS needs elaboration in 1/2 phrases for convenience of general readers.

Responses: We confused the meaning of this review. Does this mean spent mushroom substrate (SMS) was changed to waste substrate (WS)? That was using WS instead of SMS in the text?

8. My prime concern still persists regarding lack of study ra It is highly recommended that authors must critically analyze peer-findings on subject matter to highlight research and knowledge gaps in an effective manner. 

Responses: Reed has a big advantage for mushroom cultivation as substrates. We had spent more than 5 years to research mushroom cultivation on reed. The mushroom yield and quality were both good, and better than the mushroom cultivated from agro-waste substrates.

Our objective was that we tried to maximum efficiency of using reed-based SMS.

9. Research hypothesis is missing again.

Responses: A hypothesis was provided in the last paragraph of introduction.

The hypothesis was that the chemical characteristics of SMS were affected by different Pleurotus spp.

METHODLOGY

10. It is perhaps better to present in tabular form all protocols and instruments used for carrying out chemical analysis during the course of study along with relevant citations.

Responses: A table was added in the methods and named Table 1. The original Table 1 and 2 were renamed as Table 2 and 3.

Categories	Parameters	Methods	references
Feed nutrient	NDF	Van-soest washing methods	[22]
	ADF
	Ash
	Crude protein	Macro Kjeldahl method	[23]
	Amino acids	Ion exchange chromatography	[24]
	Total sugar	Determination Standard	GB/T 15672-2009
	Crude polysaccharide	Determination Standard	NY/T 1676-2008
	Crude lipid	Determination standard	GB/T6433-2006
Fertilizer	pH	PHS-3
nutrient	Total carbon	H2SO4-K2Cr2O7 oxidation method
	Total nitrogen	SAN++ continuous flow chemical analyzer
	Total phosphorus
	Total potassium	atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS)
	Ca
Microelements	Cu	atomic absorption spectrometry	GB/T13885-2017; GB/T13080-2018
	Fe
	Zn
	Mn
	Se	Method of heavy metals in feed
Heavy metals	Cd	atomic absorption spectrometry	GB/T13885-2017; GB/T13080-2018
	Cr
	Hg
	Pb
	As	Method of heavy metals in feed
	Ni

 

11. “Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to investigate the patterns of categorical parameters assessed using SPSS 17.0. The original variables were transformed into new uncorrelated variables, where each principal component is a linear combination of the original variables” lacks clarity regarding PC1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Responses: PCA was reanalyzed, and the results were rewritten as following.

The PCA based on 25 chemical and nutrient parameters showed that two components explained 72.2% of the quality variation in SMS (Fig. 4). The first component (56.8%) replaced 17 of parameters. The second component (15.4%), replaced 8 of parameters.

The first component differentiated S, SMS-P.E from SMS-P.C, SMS-P.O. The second component differentiated S, SMS-P.C from SMS-P.O, SMS-P.E. S was characterized by TC, TS, TP, and Zn. SMS-P.C was characterized by CP, Ash, Cu, Ni and Ca. SMS-P.O was characterized by CL. SMS-P.E was characterized by TK, Mn, and AA (Fig. 4).

DISCUSSION

12. I suggest authors again reconsider to interpret recorded findings and justify those in the light of peer-findings.

Responses: Some citations were moved to the introduction part. Then we compared the quality characteristics of reed-based SMS with other publications, which had been used as cultivational substrates, feed and fertilizers, respectively, then a assessment was gained that the three SMS were fit for different uses.

13. Overall, again rigorous language editing is needed for this manuscript.

Responses: The words spelling and grammar errors of English writing were checked and corrected.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The title can be revised.

In the abstract, it is mentioned that there was not significant difference on the contents of fiber, carbon, pH, Pb, Cd, Hg, and As in three SMS, but they were lower than that in substrate (S). However, in Table 2 the values of Pb, and Cd are higher as compared to the substrate. How?

References are not uniform in MS and Table 6.

what is 5%%-- in Table 6?

Check MS for grammatical errors and typographic mistakes.

 

Add PCA plots as figures.

Check attachment for further corrections.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear editor,

Thank you very much for giving us a chance to revise the manuscript. Thanks for your and reviewers’ kindly and the best review comments. We revised it carefully one by one, and checked the English grammar and words spelling. The responding details to comments were showed as following. Blue color parts were responses to the reviewers’ comments. Red color parts were the revised content in the text.

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2

1. The title can be revised.

Responses: The title was changed as following:

Chemical characteristics analysis and quality assessment of reed-based spent mushroom substrate

2. In the abstract, it is mentioned that there was not significant difference on the contents of fiber, carbon, pH, Pb, Cd, Hg, and As in three SMS, but they were lower than that in substrate (S). However, in Table 2 the values of Pb, and Cd are higher as compared to the substrate. How?

Responses: The results part was revised by following:

There was not significant difference on the contents of fiber, carbon, pH, Pb, Cd, Hg, and As in three SMS, but they were lower than that in substrate (S), except of Pb and Cd.

3. References are not uniform in MS and Table 6.

Responses: All citations in Table 6 (renamed Table 4) were numbered according to the serial number of references in MS.

4. what is 5%%-- in Table 6?

Responses: It should be blank. The published paper didn’t give a description of substrates. 5%% was deleted (renamed Table 4).

5. Check MS for grammatical errors and typographic mistakes.

Responses: The words spelling and grammar errors were checked and corrected.  

6. Add PCA plots as figures.

Responses: We add PCA plots as Figure 4, instead of Table 3, 4 and 5. The Table 6 was renamed as Table 4.

 

7. Check attachment for further corrections.

Responses: We checked the format of references, figures and tables.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The idea of research is interesting for chemical characteristics analysis and quality assessment is necessary before choosing a utilization way of spent mushroom substrate.  But this ‎manuscript needs to rewrite the abstract. 

This title is not good. Please choose another suitable title

The discussion is unsuitable to publish, you must focus on your work by ‎discussing your results step by step and some of citations remove them from ‎discussion is suitable to mention in section of introduction.

The conclusions are weak.

Needs extensive English editing.

All tables are NOT self-explanatory.

Add DOI for all references.

Please update the old references

The resolution of Fig. 1 is bad.

Author Response

Dear editor,

Thank you very much for giving us a chance to revise the manuscript. Thanks for your and reviewers’ kindly and the best review comments. We revised it carefully one by one, and checked the English grammar and words spelling. The responding details to comments were showed as following. Blue color parts were responses to the reviewers’ comments. Red color parts were the revised content in the text.

 

 

 

Reviewer 3

1. The idea of research is interesting for chemical characteristics analysis and quality assessment is necessary before choosing a utilization way of spent mushroom substrate. But this ‎manuscript needs to rewrite the abstract. 

Responses: A statement of research background was rewritten, and the conclusion part was rephrased.

Chemical characteristics analysis and quality assessment is necessary before choosing a sustainable utilization way for spent mushroom substrate (SMS) disposal. Therefore, three varieties of Pleurotus spp. cultivated on reed were taken as samples, to analyze chemical characteristics on the feed and fertilizer nutrients, as well as mineral elements. All SMS were acidic, pH was 5.26-5.51. There was not significant difference on the contents of fiber, carbon, pH, Pb, Cd, Hg, and As in three SMS, but they were lower than that in substrate (S), except of Pb and Cd. The principal component analysis based on 25 variables showed that two components explained 72.2% of the quality variation in SMS. The first component (56.8%) differentiated S, SMS of Pleurotus eryngii (SMS-P.E) from SMS of P. ostreatus and P. citrinopileatus (SMS-P.C, SMS-P.O). The second component (15.4%) differentiated SMS-P.C from SMS-P.O. The contents of total sugar, total amino acids, total potassium, crude polysaccharide, and crude lipid were similar between S and SMS-P.E. The contents of crude protein, ash, total nitrogen, Ca, Zn, Cu, and Mn in SMS-P.E were even more than that in S. The feed and fertilizer parameters of total sugar, amino acids, crude protein, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus were much lower in SMS-P.C than SMS-P.O. Therefore, a utilization suggestion was provided: according to the contents of total carbon and nitrogen, neutral detergent fiber and Ca, SMS of P. eryngii grown on reed could be considered as materials for secondary cultivation of mushroom; based on the parameters of crude protein, amino acids, total sugar, SMS of P. ostreatus was more fit for utilization as feed and fertilizer than that of P. citrinopileatus; SMS of P. citrinopileatus could be used as fertilizer.

2. This title is not good. Please choose another suitable title

Responses: The title was changed as following:

Chemical characteristics analysis and quality assessment of reed-based spent mushroom substrate

3. The discussion is unsuitable to publish, you must focus on your work by ‎discussing your results step by step and some of citations remove them from ‎discussion is suitable to mention in section of introduction.

Responses: Some citations were removed from discussion, and added into the part of introduction.

 

4. The conclusions are weak.

Responses: The conclusion was improved as following.

Characteristics analysis and quality assessment of reed-based SMS is necessary before choosing their utilization way. The mushroom strains of Pleurotus spp. had significant effects on SMS. More than 12 parameters (TC, TN, NDF, TS and so on) indicated the advantage of SMS-P.E as secondary cultivational substrates. According to the nutrient comparison (crude protein, amino acids, total sugar) with other SMS utilization as feed, reed-based SMS had superiority in contents of carbon and C/N, both of SMS-P.O and SMS-P.E can be considered as feed supplements. SMS of P. citrinopileatus grown on reed could be used as fertilizer.

 

5. Needs extensive English editing.

Responses: The manuscript was edited by a professional English editing compony.

6. All tables are NOT self-explanatory.

Responses: Table 3,4 and 5 was transferred to Figure 4, which indicated as PCA plots, and all parameters were explained in the Figure.

7. Add DOI for all references.

Responses: All references were added DOI.

8. Please update the old references

Responses: There are 24 references (51%) published in recent 5 years (after 2017). There are 42 references (89%) published in recent 15 years (after 2007). Two old references that published in 1970 and 1994 are typical methodological literature.

9. The resolution of Fig. 1 is bad.

Responses: A clear Fig. 1 was supplied.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors have addressed all the comments. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

I recommended this article can accept in this form

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The MS entitled ‘Chemical analysis and utilization suggestions of spent mushroom substrate (SMS) from Pleurotus spp. cultivated on Phragmites australis substrate’ authored by Li and Wang reports research findings pertaining to chemical analyses of SMS from P. australis substrates. The content of MS falls within the scope of the journal and can be of interest to wide readers of Agronomy, however there are numerous flaws and deficiencies which have rendered content of the MS ambiguous and scientifically flawed.

Title, It is perhaps better to replace title by omitting abbreviation and adding a conclusive statement.

Abstract,   The generalized phrases like ‘The utilization of spent mushroom substrate (SMS) is an important environmental protection problem. Our previous study had concluded that Pleurotus spp. cultivated on Phragmites australis substrate differed in nutrient utilization capacity. But it was not clear if their SMS existed distinction’ are not making sense and it is strongly suggested to add a concrete phrase to elucidate problem statement.

Additionally, one can’t judge about study objectives/goals along with response variables from the abstract. Moreover, all the research findings have been described as generalized statements without giving any comparative superiority of treatment in terms of integral values or percentage. Lastly, phrases like ‘At the end of article, a suggestion on agricultural utilization of SMSp was provided’ are highly discouraged and must be replaced with a conclusive statement based on recorded findings.

Introduction, authors have skipped study rationale by comparatively and critically analysing peer-findings and by highlighting research and knowledge gaps rather too many general statements give the impression of haphazard synthesis of random information. Moreover, I could not trace out research hypothesis while study objectives need clarity for readers convenience.

Methodology, ‘Before 2007, reed was mainly used for papermaking. Later, it was used as biomass energy for power generation. A transformation of reed resource utilization in the western part of Songnen Plain is urgently needed due to the closure of local paper factory and low efficiency of biomass power generation. Since 2017, efforts are being made to use reed as a substrate for cultivating edible fungi [19]’ not making sense here and must be shifted in the introduction section for highlighting research needs.

‘The cylindrical bag cultivation experiments of mushroom on P. australis substrates 81 were conducted between May and August in 2019’ needs clarity.

‘Then three samples were oven dried at 60 ℃ and shattered’ not clear.

‘The total sugar content was determined by the determination of total saccharide’ must be rephrased.

‘The crude lipid content was determined by Determination of the crude fat in feeds’ must be rephrased.

Results, must be rewritten to objectively analyse the impact of employed treatments and their differential impact in terms of per cent difference must be presented to give readers explicit idea of treatments efficacy.

Discussion lacks appropriate interpretation of recorded findings and it must be enriched by adding latest peer-findings to support or nullify the recorded findings. oVerall, figures quality is low and colored figures in high resolution must be provided.

Conclusion, ‘The quality of SMS is related to nutrient utilization of edible fungi’ is not making sense.

Perspectives of the study given as last 2 phrases need to be rewritten for clarity.

Overall, manuscript is ridden by ambiguous statements which make content unclear and confusing. The language of content must be improved by a native English speaker.