Using Dielectric Constant Measurement to Monitor Ethanol Fermentation and Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Lignocellulosic Biomass

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did a great job investigating the application of dielectric measurements in biomass utilization processes across three key studies. The authors showed that this method represent a promising alternative for monitoring biomass utilization processes.

I can recommend the article for publication in the “Fermentation” journal after some comments have been corrected:

1.       Line 17: «overall efficiency was lower» Efficiency of what?

2.       The introduction should be reduced by removing of repetitions, or common long phrases for example, there are several repetitions in the part where co-fermentation with wastewater residue is discussed (lines 151-181): «biogas fermentation, especially in the form of co-fermentation with wastewater sludge» ; «When discussing the co-fermentation of LCB with wastewater sludge…» ; «The process itself begins with the combination of LCB and wastewater sludge» ;

«Wastewater sludge is a nutrient-rich byproduct of the wastewater treatment process, containing a wide variety of microorganisms.» and «The sludge not only provides additional organic material for biogas production but also serves as an inoculum, introducing  a diverse range of microorganisms that can aid in the breakdown of LCB.»

Or lines 73 and 110  

The entire text of the introduction should be reviewed; perhaps many similar sentences should be combined

3.       What are the main advantages of the dielectric measurements method compared to existing methods (HPLC, GC, etc.)?

4.       Line 294: extra dot

5.       First mention of figure 3 before the figure

6.       Check the signs in the figures  (dots, commas) figure 6.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

In the name of all the Authors I would like to express my gratitude for the valuable comments and suggestions which undoubtedly help us to achieve higher scientific quality of the submitted Manuscript and make it clearer and more comprehensible for the potential readership. 

Please find our detailed response and corrections in the attached document. 

Kind regards,

The Authors 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.     The title of the work should be corrected and should reflect the content of the work.

2.     The layout of the work and the content presented are incomprehensible, which is the main purpose of the work from the point of view of the new elements developed, do they concern technology, monitoring and what are the expected effects? None of these topics were sufficiently presented.

3.     The introduction should be reorganized and adapted to the main topic of the work.

4.     The methodology is incomplete in terms of the technique of measuring the parameters presented in the work, and there is no description of the methods for analyzing the results.

5.     If the main purpose of the work is to examine the dielectric properties of the tested material, then in this respect the methodology is underdeveloped in terms of the characteristics of the devices used, especially the sensor used, and the conditions of measurement. These conditions have a significant impact on the dielectric constant.

6.     Please distinguish between correlation coefficient and determination coefficient. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (or Pearson correlation coefficient, for short) is a measure of the strength of a linear association between two variables and is denoted by r. The coefficient of determination is a statistical measurement that examines how differences in one variable can be explained by the difference in a second variable when predicting the outcome of a given event. In other words, this coefficient, more commonly known as r-squared (or r2), assesses how strong the linear relationship is between two variables and is heavily relied on by investors when conducting trend analysis.

7.     To monitor the process, the dielectric constant parameter should be selected, measured under specific conditions. The characteristics presented in Fig. 7 and 10 may be helpful in this respect. However, in their current form, they provide certain information about the variability of the examined feature. In this case, there is no full analysis of the use of this parameter.

8.     The work should be standardized in terms of the concepts used. It requires extensive editing and organizing the content to suit the intended purpose, and the final results should bring a new quality.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

All the Authors would like to thank you for your hard and valuable work in reviewing our submitted Manuscript. We would like to express our gratitude for your constructive and helpful comments and suggestions which can definitely contribute to increase the overall quality of this paper. 

Please find our answers, response, and corrections in the attached document. 

Kind regards,

The Authors 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf