Conversion of Potato Industry Waste into Fodder Yeast Biomass
, Joanna Berłowska 2,*, Maria Balcerek 1, Urszula Dziekońska-Kubczak 1, Katarzyna Pielech-Przybylska 1, Dawid Dygas 2 and Jakub Jędrasik 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is interesting and actual. I can predict a high interest from the readers.
The subject is within the scope of the journal.
However, some improvements must be conducted before the publication of this article.
1) The quality of the figures must be improved. Figures must be explained in plain text as well. If not, seems irrelevant material.
2) The importance of the subject must be explained properly in the introduction.
3) Conclusions must be well prepared. Are laconic and don't present the results properly.
Author Response
1) The quality of the figures must be improved. Figures must be explained in plain text as well. If not, seems irrelevant material.
We have improved and expanded text in some parts of the discussion. Four references were added to enable this. The graphic quality of the figure was improved. Changes in the text are highlighted in yellow.
2) The importance of the subject must be explained properly in the introduction.
Lines 16-18 in the abstract were changed to better explain the aim of our work. Also, lines 77-81 were changed to better explain the importance of the subject.
3) Conclusions must be well prepared. Are laconic and don't present the results properly.
The conclusion (lines 280-288) has been changed – changes in the text are highlighted in yellow. We also improved the discussion part, comparing our results with others and adding four additional references related to hydrolysis and the analysis of potato waste. Changes in the text are highlighted in yellow.
We would like to thank the Reviewer for this helpful suggestions which have enabled us to improve our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript Number: Processes-761232
Article Type: Research article.
Title: Conversion of potato industry waste into fodder yeast biomass
Comments:
In this manuscript, authors used potato industry waste to produce yeast. Needs more clarifications. Overall manuscript needs further improvement. My specific comments are below:
- Abstract: add 1-2 lines background information about the necessity of this work/ why need conversion.
- Use abbreviation when appears first time.
- Materials and method sections need to refer i.e., refer to original contributors work if authors followed the same procedures.
- I suggest to compare their findings with literature.
- Conclusion: Just mention the main findings. No need to use the similar alphabet order.
- Finally, I hope some critical analysis of the result.
Therefore, I recommend a major revision.
Author Response
- Abstract: add 1-2 lines background information about the necessity of this work/ why need conversion.
Lines 16-18 in the abstract have been changed to better explain the aim of our work.
- Use abbreviation when appears first time.
The authors tried to explain abbreviations when they appear for the first time. We are not able to find exclusions from this rule.
- Materials and method sections need to refer i.e., refer to original contributors work if authors followed the same procedures.
We have referred to methods described by others. Otherwise, the method is described by us.
- I suggest to compare their findings with literature.
We have improved and expanded the text in some parts of the discussion. Four references were added to enable this. Changes in the text are highlighted in yellow.
- Conclusion: Just mention the main findings. No need to use the similar alphabet order.
The conclusion (lines 280-288) has been improved. Changes in the text are highlighted in yellow.
- Finally, I hope some critical analysis of the result.
The discussion part has been improved by adding some comments, and comparing our results with others. Four additional references have been added concerning hydrolysis and the analysis of potato waste . Changes in the text are highlighted in yellow.
We would like to thank the Reviewer for this helpful suggestions which have enabled us to improve our manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors accepted all recommendations presented previously and for that reason I consider that the article can be published.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor,
This paper can now be accepted.
Thanks
