Techno-Economic Analysis for the Costs of Drying Chickpeas: An Example Showing the Trade-Off Between Capital and Operating Costs for Different Inlet Air Temperatures^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents the analysis of capital cost, operation cost, and the environmental impact of chickpeas drying. Although the fluidized bed drying with an air recirculation system has been studied for its benefit in energy saving and cost reduction, this study still provides a new finding in the environmental aspect. Therefore, it should be useful for readers.

1. Comparison should be based on the same quality of dried Chickpeas from all conditions. However, the manuscript does not study the quality and properties of dried Chickpeas from each drying condition. This can be the weak point of the manuscript.
2. The methodology for Tecnico-Economic analysis and carbon emission should be described in Section 2 “Materials and Methods”.
3. What is the experimental design? Also is there any statistical analysis? Please clarify.
4. What does ‘z’ in equation 3 mean?
5. The title of section 3.2.3 does not match its content. Please revise.
6. Capital and operation costs of other studies on chickpeas drying should be reviewed, compared, and discussed with the new findings from the current study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In abstract and title, replace technico-economic analysis with techno economic analysis, which is most commonly used term.
2. The first sentence of the abstract is quite long and complex. Consider breaking it down for better readability.
3. Use proper symbol for degree.
4. At the end of the introduction mention the main objective of the research.
5. Give proper justification why you have assumed the initial moisture content is 55% (d.b.). It can be calculated easily. Why didn't calculated actual moisture content?
6. Before showing the calculation of evaporative load, give basic information about it and need to calculate it.
7. Properly define the TGout, Yout, its not clear in the diagram that what all these means, temperature and time etc?
8. mention what is Z in equation 2.
9. Number of equations are used in the manuscript, but exact references for them are missing. add all missing references.
10. Result is not discussed properly by correlating it with previous studies.
11. In conclusion ad some future remark or suggestions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article deals with a very topical topic, namely reducing the costs of food production and the impact on emissions during their production. The results show that using new food processing technologies it is possible to save considerable costs together with reducing the emissions produced. This is a benefit not only for processing companies, but also for society.

The introductory part of the work is written in a clear and logical manner, and all the information provided is supported by a sufficient number of relevant professional sources. The methodology for calculating costs and emissions is described in detail, with consistent references to the literature from which the authors draw. The presentation of the data and the obtained results is clear, which facilitates their understanding and allows for effective comparison with available literary sources. The discussion of the results is conducted systematically and reflects key findings from the professional literature. The conclusions are clearly formulated, are based on the obtained data, and bring valuable and stimulating knowledge.

As for formal requirements, I only have the following:

For citations that are part of the text, the year could be given. Example in line 160: Turton et al. (2018).
In figures (2, 3a and 3b), the currency is missing from the "cost per kg" axis.

Overall summary:

The paper can be accepted without further changes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lines 29-34 are from reference No. 2, so the citation can be placed once in the last sentence on line 34.