Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I have read Your manuscript, and the paper is interesting and well-prepared. Only a few improvements should be considered according to the following comments:

1.       Lines 84-86 – Are these research results? If yes, why are provided in the M&M section?

2.       The Tables and Figures titles are too long and complicated. Please simplify. Try to move the description from the table/figure title to the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Well, a written manuscript except for a few editing issues.

Details material and methods section and how data was processed is the strength along with the importance of work and its novelty.

1. line 80~81, During this experiment, a fungal enzyme preparation was added to the biogas reactor at a concentration of 7.5∙10-2 μL per milliliter. What is 7.5.10-2?

2. This sentence is not clear (lines 83-84). A sampling of the reactor medium was conducted six months after inoculation at 83steady-state conditions and 21 h after substrate addition. Please rewrite it.

3. Authors need to add discuss different enzyme degradation mechanisms under the bioreactor conditions.

4. How authors are sure that the extraction and purification process of enzymes is efficient from AD reactor.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf