Next Article in Journal
Isolation and Characterization of a Thermaerobacillus caldiproteolyticus-like Strain Producing Extracellular Amylase from the Nelumwewa Geothermal Spring, Sri Lanka
Previous Article in Journal
Pigments from Microorganisms: A Sustainable Alternative for Synthetic Food Coloring
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ensilage and Secondary Fermentation of Maize Stalk and Their Effect on Methane Production and Microbial Community Dynamics in Anaerobic Digestion
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Valorization of Spent Coffee Grounds as a Substrate for Fungal Laccase Production and Biosorbents for Textile Dye Decolorization

Fermentation 2025, 11(7), 396; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11070396
by Eduardo da Silva França 1, Adriana Ferreira de Souza 2, Dayana Montero Rodríguez 2, Nazareth Zimiani de Paula 3, Anna Gabrielly Duarte Neves 4, Kethylen Barbara Barbosa Cardoso 5, Galba Maria de Campos-Takaki 2, Marcos Antonio Barbosa de Lima 3,* and Ana Lucia Figueiredo Porto 4
Fermentation 2025, 11(7), 396; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11070396
Submission received: 1 June 2025 / Revised: 5 July 2025 / Accepted: 5 July 2025 / Published: 10 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application and Research of Solid State Fermentation, 2nd Edition)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract: indicate the meaning of FTIR and SEM

line 92: indicate the refrigeration temperature and period that strains were preserved in this environment

line 96: specify how the SCG were assumed to be completed dehydrated (mass average loss?)

line 97-98: specify where the dehydrated SCG were kept at 28ºC (controlled temperature chambes?), for how long and the standard deviation of this temperature

line 102: indicate the equipment used throughout the incubation period

line 107: indicate the granulometry distribution (% of each sieve between 0.045 and 1.0 mm) and how the granulometry was acquired

line 110: replace Cardoso et al. (2018) with the correct citation manner

line 144: please add more details regarding the washing and lyophilization procedures

line 187: check if the temperature should be -4ºC

line 196: indicate the filtration material and its mesh

line 247: please move lines 264-265 to line 247 (cite Table 3 prior to its presentation)

lines 323-328: phrase duplicated. remove it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a good work from an experimental point of view, and I recommend the article for publication after some major revisions.

More specific:

  1. Certain phrases in the abstract and conclusion could benefit from refinement. For instance, “post-fermentation SCG and residual biomass” should be more clearly distinguished to avoid interpretive ambiguity regarding the origin and identity of each material.
  2. Please indicate whether the biosorbents were tested for reusability or regeneration potential over multiple adsorption–desorption cycles.
  3. Was any comparative evaluation performed between unfermented and fermented SCG with respect to dye adsorption capacity?
  4. Are the laccase isoforms produced by Lentinus crinitus and Trametes species functionally distinct or structurally characterized?
  5. Additional information on the experimental scale would be useful. Are there technical or economic constraints foreseen in upscaling the fermentation and biosorbent production process to pilot or industrial levels?
  6. The manuscript currently cites 71 references, which exceeds the norm for a primary research article. Consolidation to approximately 35–40 key citations is recommended to maintain conciseness and readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been revised according to the suggestions and criticisms of the reviewers. In this revised version, the paper has improved its quality and I recommend the article for publication.

Author Response

Comments 1: [The paper has been revised according to the suggestions and criticisms of the reviewers. In this revised version, the paper has improved its quality and I recommend the article for publication.]

Response 1: [We thank you very much constructive feedback which greatly contributed to improving the clarity and scientific rigor of our manuscript.]

Back to TopTop