Peer-Review Record
Comparative Analysis of a Family of Sliding Mode Observers under Real-Time Conditions for the Monitoring in the Bioethanol Production
Fermentation 2022, 8(9), 446; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8090446
by
Eduardo Alvarado-Santos 1
, Juan L. Mata-Machuca 2,*, Pablo A. López-Pérez 3, Rubén A. Garrido-Moctezuma 4, Fermín Pérez-Guevara 1 and Ricardo Aguilar-López 1,*
, Juan L. Mata-Machuca 2,*, Pablo A. López-Pérez 3, Rubén A. Garrido-Moctezuma 4, Fermín Pérez-Guevara 1 and Ricardo Aguilar-López 1,*Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Anonymous
Fermentation 2022, 8(9), 446; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8090446
Submission received: 2 August 2022
/
Revised: 1 September 2022
/
Accepted: 6 September 2022
/
Published: 7 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic Bioreactors: Control, Optimization and Applications)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The comments are in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for the opportunity to review the manuscript by Alvarado-Santos et al. I find the work merits publishing, but I have some concerns.
General concerns:
- Please define if the proposed model could be applied to any fermentation process independent of the organism. i.e., bacteria or yeast.
- Please compare their model approach versus other model systems used to infer the performance of bioprocesses —for instance, ODE or stochastic modeling.
- Please clarify the most critical parameters, variables, or reactions your model retries o simulate in the bioprocess.
- Please describe or refers to the geometry measures of the bioreactor used and if your approach can be helpful for the diverse types of bioreactors.
Minor concerns:
- Line 148. correct to mg mL-1
- Line 151. correct the subindex 2 in CO2-BTA
- Lines 201-202, it is duplicated the word "data."
- Line 218, there is an unnecessary point after the word "variables"
- In figure 6, it is confused which data correspond to 54 and 44 g/L of the substrate (line 338).
- Line 339, I think you refer to figure 6, not 4.
- Line 350, table 2, it isn't easy to know which data correspond to So=54 or 44.
- Reference 39 is missing in the text
- You can consider citing to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2013.03.003
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I did a fast forward reading of the responses to the comments, and they seem adequate.
On my part, I agree with the publication of this paper.
