Enhanced Sugar Yield from Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Cellulignin from Sugarcane Bagasse Using a Biosurfactant and Soybean Protein in Powdered and Cavitated Forms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript "Enhanced Sugar Yield from Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Cellulignin from Sugarcane Bagasse Using a Biosurfactant and Soybean Protein in Powdered and Cavitated Forms" presents an interesting study on improving sugar yields from cellulignin using soybean protein and biosurfactants. The study introduces an innovative approach by applying hydrodynamic cavitation to enhance the solubility of soybean protein and its impact on enzymatic hydrolysis. The research is well-structured, and the methodology is clearly described.

However, some critical aspects need to be addressed before publication.

1. The manuscript lacks a discussion on the economic feasibility and scalability of hydrodynamic cavitation, as well as its potential for industrial application.

 

2. The authors used a statistical model to optimize lignocellulosic material hydrolysis, but the manuscript lacks model validation through a comparative analysis between predicted and experimentally obtained results.

 

3. The manuscript does not provide details about the enzymes used for lignocellulosic material hydrolysis (e.g., enzyme type—pure enzyme, enzyme blend, commercial enzyme, isolated enzyme—, or its source), which limits the reproducibility of the study.

 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments and suggestions, which have been highly valuable in improving the clarity and quality of our manuscript.

To address each of the reviewer’s observations, we have provided a detailed point-by-point response in the attached document. Additionally, in the revised version of the manuscript, all modifications and additions made in response to the reviewer’s recommendations have been highlighted in blue text for easy identification.

Thank you for your constructive feedback and for helping us strengthen this study. We look forward to your evaluation of the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the manuscript, however it is in need of significant improvement. The paper's argument is not clearly articulated, and the logic of the whole paper is opaque. It appears as though there are two separate topics: lignocellulose hydrolysis and cavitation treatment. In addition to this, there is a necessity for significant improvement to the text and tables. Please refer to the comments I have provided in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments and recommendations, which have been instrumental in enhancing the clarity and quality of our manuscript.

To ensure that each observation has been thoroughly addressed, we have provided a detailed point-by-point response in the attached document. Additionally, in the revised manuscript, all modifications and additions made based on the reviewer’s suggestions have been highlighted in blue text for easy identification.

Thank you for your valuable feedback and for contributing to the improvement of this study. We look forward to your evaluation of the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting study on enzymatic hydrolysis of sugarcane bagasse through an innovative strategy. The authors of this work are supported by a design of experiments that allows obtaining conclusions regarding the influence of different factors on the yields of the process.

However, the authors should work on the manuscript to add extra information to consider the content sufficient to be considered valuable research work.

The authors have to revise the manuscript in the following aspects:

*materiales y métodos, se considera incompleto

Line 73 to 75: Sugarcane bagasse, generously provided by Ipiranga Agroindustrial LTDA (Descal-74 vado, São Paulo, Brazil), was subjected to acid hydrolysis (1% H₂SO₄, 120 °C, 1 hour) to produce cellulignin.

It is necessary for the authors to indicate the composition (at least in cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin) of the solid named cellulignin.

the authors state on several occasions: analyzed by HPLC to quantify glucose and xylose concentrations.

It is necessary that the authors detail the HPLC equipment (manufacturer, model, column), as well as the conditions of analysis (detector, flow, temperature, etc.).

On the other hand, it is necessary for the authors to include a subsection in this section where they explain how they have carried out the calculation, methodology, equation, etc. of glucose and xylose yield, from which they focus a large part of their discussion of the results.

*section 5. Conclusions. The statements made in this section must be accompanied by quantitative results found by the authors in this study. Thus, for example:

Powdered soybean protein improved enzymatic hydrolysis yields even in lignin-rich 492 biomass like cellulignin, (XX %),….

Hydrodynamic cavitation enhanced the protein’s solubility (indicate author's evidence), surface area (indicate author's evidence), and uniformity (indicate author's evidence), further increasing sugar yields compared to non-cavitated protein (indicate author's evidence).

*As a final part of the conclusions, it would be interesting if the authors could provide future studies or lines of work based on the results found in this study.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments and recommendations, which have been instrumental in enhancing the clarity and quality of our manuscript.

To ensure that each observation has been thoroughly addressed, we have provided a detailed point-by-point response in the attached document. Additionally, in the revised manuscript, all modifications and additions made based on the reviewer’s suggestions have been highlighted in blue text for easy identification.

Thank you for your valuable feedback and for contributing to the improvement of this study. We look forward to your evaluation of the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your revisions. I appreciate the effort you have made in addressing the reviewers' comments. I find the revisions appropriate, and the manuscript is now well-aligned with the journal's standards.