Development of Biodegradable Bioplastic from Banana Pseudostem Cellulose

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Development of Biodegradable Bioplastic from Banana Pseudostem Cellulose: A Sustainable Alternative to Non-Degradable Plastics” was carefully reviewed. The study addresses an important topic related to sustainable materials and valorization of agricultural waste.
The work presents potential scientific value; however, several technical, methodological, and editorial issues must be addressed before it can be considered for publication.
Detailed comments by section are provided below to guide the authors in revising and improving the manuscript.

 

1. Title and Abstract

 

The title is clear but could be more concise and technically precise: “Development of Biodegradable Bioplastic from Banana Pseudostem Cellulose” — consider removing “A Sustainable Alternative to Non-Degradable Plastics”, which is redundant and not specific to the scope.

The abstract lacks quantitative details on FTIR, SEM, and DSC findings. Add key results (e.g., characteristic peaks, pore sizes, or temperature transitions) for scientific completeness.

“Applied lyophilization method” → “using a lyophilization process.”

The abstract incorrectly uses “rupture strength (6.90×10⁵ Pa)” — verify the unit (Pa) and significant figures; the notation and magnitude should match standard tensile strength reporting (MPa).

Clarify what “compressed” means in this context — specify the compression pressure or method.

 

2. Introduction

 

The introduction summarizes background well but lacks a critical review of prior works. Expand the discussion of existing banana pseudostem cellulose studies beyond references [3–5] to position your novelty.

 

Table 1 mixes “biodegradable” and “non-biodegradable” materials but lacks citations or justification. Explain why this table is relevant to your specific study.

Sentences such as “Cellulose embedded with starch and other polymers is an example of a biodegradable, starch-based polymer…” are repetitive — revise for clarity and precision.

Clearly state the research gap (e.g., no previous studies have characterized the mechanical and thermal properties of banana pseudostem-derived starch-cellulose bioplastics).

Include a concise statement of the main hypothesis and objectives at the end of the introduction.

 

3. Materials and Methods

3.1 Materials

Provide full purity or concentration data for reagents (e.g., specify NaOH % purity, sulfuric acid molarity).

“Antifoam B Emulsion” — indicate its concentration and function in the digestion process.

 

3.2 Equipment

The list is too exhaustive. Move model numbers and brands to supplementary material; only key instruments (FTIR, SEM, DSC, tensile tester) should remain in the main text.

 

3.3 Sample Selection

Clarify the criteria for selecting pseudostem samples (e.g., age, maturity, moisture content).

Indicate the drying time and final moisture level after lyophilization.

 

3.4 Cellulose Quantification

The AOAC 962.09 method is for crude fiber in animal feed — justify its adaptation for cellulose determination in plant biomass.

Include replicates and statistical treatment (mean ± SD, n=3 or similar).

The formula includes “Bv = blank value (1)” — clarify whether “1” is an example or constant.

Explain the significance of each mass (M1–M4) in words in the text rather than only in the formula.

 

3.5 Cellulose Extraction

The text states “valued at 2.4” — unclear expression. Replace with the exact percentage or value that led to selecting the variety.

Provide solid-to-liquid ratios (g biomass per L of reagent) to enable reproducibility.

State pH control, washing steps, and number of repetitions for acid/alkali treatments.

Include mass yield (%) of purified cellulose from dry biomass.

 

3.6 Bioplastic Synthesis

Include the dry matter ratio (1:1 cellulose:starch is unclear — by weight of dry solids?).

Specify whether starch was gelatinized prior to cellulose addition.

Lyophilization conditions (“−29°C and 0.44 MPa”) — verify units: 0.44 MPa is too high for freeze-drying; likely meant 0.44 mbar or 0.44 Pa.

Describe post-drying conditioning (humidity, storage before testing).

 

3.7 Characterization

Number the subsections correctly (2.7.1, 2.7.2, etc.) — numbering repetition (2.5) occurs.

For FTIR: provide scan range, resolution, and number of scans averaged.

For SEM: describe sample preparation (sputter coating thickness, accelerating voltage).

For DSC: indicate calibration and sample atmosphere (air or nitrogen).

For tensile testing: specify crosshead speed, standard used (ASTM D638 or D882), and number of replicates.

 

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Cellulose Yield

Include standard deviation or statistical significance (ANOVA, Tukey test).

Discuss the variation between varieties in terms of lignocellulosic composition, not just numerical order.

 

4.2 FTIR Analysis

Figures 1 and 2 captions are descriptive but inconsistent with MDPI formatting. Simplify and merge redundant explanations.

Provide wavenumber assignments with proper references in Table 3; currently, lignin/cellulose/hemicellulose overlap is discussed but not quantitatively compared.

The explanation of hydrogen bonding (O–H band shifts) is repetitive across paragraphs — condense for clarity.

Improve figure readability by adding clearer axis labels and uniform color schemes.

 

4.3 SEM Analysis

The discussion uses analogies like “similar to concrete mixture,” which should be avoided in scientific writing — replace with technical interpretation (e.g., “homogeneous dispersion of cellulose in the starch matrix enhances interfacial bonding”).

Provide magnifications and scale bars for all micrographs.

Quantify pore size distribution and film thickness if possible.

Avoid repeating particle size data twice (lines 244–248).

 

4.4 DSC Analysis

Units and terminology: “Endothermic jump” → “endothermic transition” or “thermal event.”

Figures 5 and 6 should include temperature and heat flow units, and curves must be normalized (J/g).

Add enthalpy values (ΔH) and explain their physical significance.

Discuss how the Tg and other transitions compare to literature values for starch-cellulose systems.

 

The interpretation (“improved thermal properties over starch alone”) should be supported with quantified data.

 

4.5 Rheological / Tensile Properties

The section mixes mechanical and rheological terms — replace “rheological” with “mechanical properties” throughout.

Provide error bars or variability for each measurement (Table 5).

Density value “110.000 kg/m³” seems incorrect — verify decimal placement (likely 1100 kg/m³).

Compare tensile strength in consistent units (MPa) with literature benchmarks.

Table 6 comparison to EPS is illustrative but lacks citation format; integrate into the discussion with clear context.

 

5. Conclusions

The conclusions are well structured but include excessive repetition of results. Condense to 3–4 focused points:

Cellulose yield and selection of the optimal variety.

Structural and chemical confirmation (FTIR, SEM).

Enhanced thermal and mechanical performance.

Application potential and sustainability relevance.

Avoid promotional language (“paving the way for scalable production”) — keep a neutral scientific tone.

Add one sentence suggesting future work (e.g., biodegradation testing, water absorption, or optimization of cellulose–starch ratios).

 

6. Figures and Tables

All figures lack proper numbering and high resolution. Ensure consistent labeling (e.g., Figure 1a, Figure 1b) and placement after first mention.

Units in Tables 2–6 must be standardized (use SI units and include ±SD).

Revise all captions for self-contained understanding (without referring to main text).

 

7. References

Verify consistency with journal format: check punctuation, italics, and DOI inclusion.

Several references (e.g., [7]) lack complete details (volume, pages).

Ensure all claims (e.g., hydrogen bonding explanation, EPS mechanical comparison) have proper citations.

Author Response

Comments 1. Title and abstract. The title is clear but could be more concise and technically precise: "Development of Biodegradable Bioplastic from Banana Pseudostem Cellulose", consider removing "A Sustainable Alternative to Non-Degradable Plastics", which is redundant and not specific to the scope.

Response 1. We agree with your comment and have made the change.

Comments 2. The abstract lacks quantitative details on FTIR, SEM, and DSC findings. Add key results (e.g., characteristic peaks, pore sizes, or temperature transitions) for scientific completeness. "Applied lyophilization method"...."using a lyophilization process". The abstract incorrectly uses "rupture strength (6.90 x 105 Pa)...verify the unit (Pa) and significant figures, the notation and magnitude should match standard tensile strength reporting (MPa). Clarify what "compressed" means in this context-specify the compression pressure or method.

Response 2. In the summary, we have included the most relevant data from the results obtained, taking into account your suggestions. We have also clarified the compression method and device used.

Comments 3. The introduction summarizes backgroun well but lacks a critical review of prior works. Expand the discussion of existing banana pseudostem cellulose studies beyond references (3-5) to position your novelty. Table 1. mixes "biodegradable" and "non-biodegradable" materials but lacks citations or justifications. Explain why this table is relevant to your specific study. Sentences such as "cellulose embedded with starch and other polymers is an example of a biodegradable, starch-based polymer...." are repetitive-revise for clarity and precision. Clearly state the research gap (eg., no previous studies have characterized the mechanical and thermal properties of banana pseudostem-derived starch-cellulose bioplastics). Include a concise statement of the main hypothesis and objetives at the end of the introduction.

Response 3. We have taken into account all the comments made in the introduction and have made the suggested changes, in the case of Table 1, it was removed.

Comments 4. 3.1 Materials: provide full purifity or concentration data for reagents (eg. specifity NaOH % purity, sulfuric acid molarity) "Antifoam B Emulsion"-indicate ist concentration and function in the digestion processs.

Response 4. The purity of the reagents has been provide, as well as the function of the antifoaming agent.

Comments 5. 3.2 Equipment. The list is too exhaustive. Move model numbers and brands to supplementary material; only key instruments (FTIR, SEM, DSC, tensile tester) should remain in the main text.

Response 5. It is common practice in this journal to include the brand, model, and country of origin of equipment (e.g. Deep et al. J. 2023, 6, 207-219; Balsamo et al, J., 2022, 5, 92-104).

Comments 6. 3.3 Sample selection. Clarify the criteria for selecting pseudostem samples (e.g., age, maturity, moisture content). Indicate the drying time and final moisture level after lyophilization.

Response 6. We have provided the request data.

Comments 7. 3.4 Cellulose quantification. The AOAC 962.09 method is for crude fiber in animal feed-justify its adaptation for cellulose determination in plant biomass. Include replicates and statistical treatment (mean SD, n= 3 or similar). The formula includes "Bv = blank value (1)"-clarify whether "1" is an example or constant. Explain the significance of each mass (M1-M4) in words in the text rather than only in the formula.

Response 7. Crude fiber is a traditional term that refers to the insoluble residue of plant or animal organic matter remaining after sequential hydrolysis treatment with acids and alkalis. It represents the most resistant cellulose and lignin and is used to assess food composition and animal nutrition. I now quote the principle of the AOAC method used, which is why we applied this method in this investigation: "crude fiber is loss on ignition of dried residue remaining after digestion of the sample with 1.25% (w/v) H₂SO₄ and 1.25% (w/v) NaOH solutions under specific conditions. Method applies to materials from which the fat can be and is extracted to obtain a workable residue, including grains, meals, flours, feeds, fibrous materials, and pet foods". On the other hand, Table 1, includes the standard deviations and the numbers of samples used in the quantification of cellulose; in addition, the formula used for this quantification is presented in detail.

Comments 8. 3.5 Cellulose extraction. The text states "valued at 2.4"-unclear expression. Replace with the exact percentage or value that the led to selecting the variety. Provide solid-to-liquid ratios (e.g. biomass per L of reagent) to enable reproducibility. State pH control, washing steps, and number of repetions of acid/alkali treatments. Include mass yield (%) of purified cellulose from dry biomass.

Response 8. The variety with the highest cellulose percentage was included in the text. The solid-to-liquid ratio of the biomass per liter of reagent was also included. For pH control, the process continued until a neutral pH was achieved. The acid/alkali process was performed only once. The percentage yield of cellulose obtained is entered.

Comments 9. 3.6 Bioplastic synthesis. Include the dry matter ratio (1:1 cellulose:starch is unclear-by weight of dry solids?). Specify whether starch was gelatinized prior to cellulose addition. Lyophilization conditions ("-29^oC and 0.44 MPa)-verify units: 0.44 MPa is too high for freeze-drying; likely meant 0.44 mbar of 0.44 Pa. Describe post-drying contidioning (humidity, storage before testing).

Response 9. The suggestions have been incorporated, and the bioplastic synthesis is more precise.

Comments 10. 3.7 Characterization. Number the subsections correctly (2.7.1, 2.7.2, etc.)-numbering repetition (2.5) occurs. For FTIR: provide scan range, resolution, and number of scans averaged. For SEM: describe sample preparation (sputter coating thickness, accelerating voltage). For DSC: indicate calibration and sample atmosphere (air or nitrogen). For tensile testing: specify crosshed speed, standard used (ASTM D638 or D882), and number of replicates.

Response 10: all suggestions have been implemented.

Comments 11. 4.1 Cellulose yield. Include standar deviation or statistical significance (Anova, tukey test). Discuss the variation between varieties in terms of lignocellulosic composition, not just numerical order.

Response 11. Table 1 includes the standard deviation and the number of repetitions. We appreaciate the reviewer's insightful suggestion. The scope of this study focused exclusively on quantifying cellulose content to identify the most suitable variety for bioplastic development. Since lignin and hemicellulose were not measured, we are unable to discuss compositional differences among varieties beyond the reported cellulose values. We agree that a comprehensive lignocellulosic comparison would be valuable consider it a relevant direction for future research.

Comments 12. 4.2 FTIR analysis. Figures 1 and 2 captions are descriptive but inconsistent with MDPI formatting. Simplify and merge redundant explanations. Provide wavenumber assignments with profer reference in Table 3; currently, lignin/cellulose/hemicellulose overlap is discussed but not quantitatively compared. The explanation of hydrogen bonding (O-H band shifts) is repetitive across paragraphs-condense for clarity. Improve figure readability by adding clearer axis labels and uniform color schemes.

Response 12. We have taken into account the suggestions from the MDPI format, regarding your observations (Kamnev et al., Molecules 2021, 26(4), 1146; Tkachenko et al. Molecules 2022, 27, 8846). Additionally, the most characteristic absorption bands of the compounds are listed in Table 2. On the other hand, our objetive is to qualitatively identify the presence or absence of lignin and hemicellulose signals in the cellulose extracted from banana pseudostem. Therefore, this article does not aim to quantitatively characterize the proportions of lignin, hemicellulose, and cellulose in the banana pseudostem. We appreciate your valuable contribution in this regard, which will serve as input for our future in-depth study on the composition and chemical characterization of banana variety pseudostems.

Comments 13. 4.3 SEM analysis. The discussion uses analogies like "similar to concrete mixture", which should be avoided in scientific writing-replace with technical interpretation (e.g. "homogeneous dispersion of cellulose in the starch matrix enhances interfacial bonding"). Provide magnifications and scale bars for all micrographs. Quantify pore size distribution and film thickness if possible. Avoide repeating particle zise date twice (lines 244-248).

Response 13. The first suggestion has been corrected. Regarding scale and magnification, these can be seen at the bottom of each of the photomicrographs (Figure 3a, 3b, 3c, and 4). Furthermore, the magnification is indicated in the figure captions. Regarding the pore size distribution and film thickness, I should mention that, since our study is currently exploratory, we are not performing a deep structural SEM analysis. The porosity appears heterogeneous at this time, with many lamellar structures forming, making it possible to determine a pore distribution with any acceptable degree of certainty. For now, we have focused on how the cellulose is distributed with the matrix. In future work, we will study how to homogenize the material's porosity by controlling certain variables during gelation, material deposition, and other processes. This will allow us to quantify the porosity distribution with acceptable precision, as you aptly suggest. Similarly, the thickness of the lamellar forms in currently characterized more qualitatively for the same reasons as those mentioned regarding porosity.

Comments 14. 4.4 DSC analysis. Units and terminology: "Endothermic jump"...."endothermic transition" or "thermal event". Figures 5 and 6 should include temperature and heat flow units, and curves must be normalized (J/g). Add enthalpy values (H) and explain their physical significance. Discuss how the Tg and other transitions compare to literature values for starch-cellulose systems. The interpretation ("improved thermal properties over starch alone") should be support with quantified data.

Response 14. All suggestion have been taken into cosideration in the DSC discussion.

Comments 15. Rheological/Tensile properties. The section mixes mechanical and rheological terms-replace "rheological" with "mechanical properties" throughout. Provide error bars or variability for each measurement (Table 5). Density value "110.000 kg/m³" seems incorrect-verify decimal placement (likely 1100 kg/m³). Compare tensile strenght in consisten units (MPa) with literature bechmarks. Table 6 comparison to EPS is illustrative but lacks citation format; integrate into discussion with clear context.

Response 15. Taking into account your suggestion and that of other reviewers, it was decided to place Tensile strenght analysis as section 3.5. Regarding the data in Table 5, (now Table 4). I would like to comment on the folowing: Table 4 reports dimensional and physical parameters (mass, thickness, humidity, density) characteristic of each specific bioplastic sheet obtained by lyophilization or mechanical compression. Because these properties reflect the actual geometry and mass distribution of each fabricated sheet, they are not expected to vary meanigfully when measured repeatedly on the same specimen, and therefore are conventionally reported as single values. Variability in performace is instead captured in tensile testing, where n= 3 indepent specimens were tested following ASTM D638. For these reasons, statistical dispersion cannot be provided for Table 4, without creating pseudo-replicates, which would not reflect the experimental design. Regarding density, the data were checked and found to be 110 kg/m³; we rounded the measurement values to 2 significant figures. The value was converted from Pascals to megapascals as suggested.

Comments 16. The conclusions are well structured but include excessive repetition of results. Condese to 3-4 focused points: cellulose yield and selection of the optimical variety. Structural and chemical confirmation (FTIR, SEM). Enhanced thermal and mechanical performance. Application potential and sustainability relevance. Avoid promotional language ("paving the way for scalable production")-keep a neutral scientific tone. Add one sentence suggesting future work (e.g., biodegradation testing, water absorption, or optimizating of cellulose-starch ratios).

Response 16. The conclusions were shortened and made precise, highlighting the best results and future projections.

Comments 17. Figures and tables. All figures lack proper numbering and high resolution. Ensure consistent labeling (e.g. Figure 1a, Figure 1b) and placement after first mention. Units in Tables 2-6 must be stantardized (use SI units and include SD) Revise all captions for self-contained understanding (without referring to main text)

Response 17. The suggestions have been taken into consideration for the corrections.

Comments 18. References. Verify consistency with journal format: check punctuation, italics, and DOI inclusion. Several references (e.g., 7), lack complete details (volume, pages). Ensure call claims (e.g. hydrogen bonding explanation, EPS mechanical comparison) have proper citations.

Response 18. The have been corrected in accordance with the authors' guidelines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Keywords: Four of the provided keywords are already included in the main title; these should be revised or replaced with more specific and distinctive terms.

Line 67–69: The sentence beginning with “It extracts cellulose from … rheological properties” should be rephrased for better clarity and readability. The current phrasing is ambiguous and does not clearly convey the intended meaning.

Page 3

Section 2.2 — Equipment, Lines 82–92: This section should be deleted. Listing equipment under a separate heading is more suitable for a thesis or technical report format rather than a research article. The relevant details may instead be briefly incorporated within the Materials and Methods section for example; the specifications of each instrument should be mentioned alongside the name of the corresponding equipment where it is first used.

The word “Datil” should be written consistently throughout the manuscript, including both line 95 and Table 2, to maintain uniform terminology.

Line 102: The word “Fibretherm” should begin with a lowercase initial letter.

Lines 103–104: The word “FibreBag” should also begin with lowercase initials and be written as “fibre bag.”

Line 105: The word “FIBRETHERM” should be written in the same format as used in line 102 for consistency.

Lines 107–108, 118, 124: A space should be inserted between the numerical value and the temperature unit (°C) throughout the text.

Line 112: The equation should be properly formatted using the Equation Editor to ensure correct presentation and readability.

Heading 2.5: The phrase “Physical Chemistry” should not appear in the heading. Please rephrase the title to accurately reflect the content of the section without referring to the discipline name.

Line 147: The unit should be represented as “mL/min” for correct scientific notation.

Line 152: The words “Laser” and “Cutter” should begin with lowercase initials, written as “laser” and “cutter.”

Lines 164–165: The Results section should consistently be written in the past tense throughout the manuscript, as it describes completed experiments and observations.

Line 172: The statement “O–H bending in methyl group” appears scientifically incorrect or unclear. Please verify whether this interpretation is valid, as the O–H group is not typically part of a methyl group (–CH₃).

Lines 197–200: Phrases such as “blue raw show,” “raw purple shows,” and “circles shows” lack grammatical clarity and precision. These should be rephrased to convey the intended meaning clearly—perhaps by specifying what each color or marker represents in the corresponding figure or dataset.

Line 206: The word “shows” should be replaced with “showed” to maintain consistency with the past tense used in the Results section.

Lines 212–214: These lines are a repetition of Lines 203–205 and should be deleted to avoid redundancy.

Table 3: Table 3 has not been cited in the text; it must be properly cited and discussed at the relevant point in the manuscript.

FTIR spectra of starch (Fig. 2-b): The source of the starch used for FTIR analysis should be clearly specified. Please indicate whether it was extracted from banana pseudostem or obtained commercially.

Line 239: The word “show” should be replaced with “showed” to maintain consistency with the past tense used throughout the Results section.

Lines 275, 282 & 298: The word “exhibits” should be replaced with “exhibited” to ensure uniform use of past tense in the Results section.

Line 277, 280, 283, 288: A space should be inserted between the numerical value and the temperature unit (°C) throughout the text.

Line 279, 301: The word “displays” should be replaced with “displayed” to maintain consistency with the past tense used throughout the Results section.

Results and discussion: The Results section (Page 4-10) should consistently be written in the past tense throughout the manuscript, as it describes completed experiments and observations.

Line 339: The term “Expanded Polystyrene Foam” should begin with lowercase initials and be written as “expanded polystyrene foam.”

Line 340: The word “properties” should be deleted for grammatical accuracy and conciseness.

Table 6: Please clarify how the value 9.40 × 10⁴ is comparable with 1.20 × 10⁵. The comparison appears inconsistent or requires further explanation regarding calculation methods, measurement units, or data interpretation.

Conclusion: The Conclusion section should be rephrased to improve clarity and coherence. Additionally, all statements referring to the author’s own findings should be written in the past tense, as they describe completed work.

References: Please include the page numbers for the first citation in the reference list to ensure completeness and proper formatting according to the journal’s citation guidelines.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1. Keywords: four of the provided keywords are already in the main title; these should be revised or replaced with more specific and distinctive terms.

Response 1. We have implemented the suggested changes.

Comments 2. Line 67-69: the sentence beginning with "it extracts cellulose from...rheological properties" should be rephrased for better clarity and readability. The current phrasing is ambiguous and does not clearly convey the intended meaning.

Response 2. The ambiguous phrase was modified as suggested.

Comments 3. Page 3. Section 2.2-Equiment, lines 82-89: This section should be deleted. Listing equiment under a separate heading is more suitable for a thesis or technical report format rather than a research article. The relevant details may instead be briefly incorporated within the Materials and Methods section for example; the specifications of each instrument should be mentioned alongside the name of the corresponding equipment where it is first used.

Response 3. Thank you for the suggestions; in our manuscript, we have used MDPI publications as references, which are relevant to this research.

Comments 4. The word "Datil" should be written consistently throughout the manuscript, including both line 95 and Table 2, to maintain uniform terminology.

Response 4. We have standardized the terminology throughout the document.

Comments 5. Line 102: the word "Fibretherm" should begin with a lowercase initial letter.

Response 5. We have corrected the term Fibretherm in the manuscript to FIBRETHERM to maintain the commercial name of the equipment.

Comments 6. Lines 103-104: the word "FibreBag" should also begin with lowercase initials and be written as "fibre bag".

Response 6. The word FibreBag is a commercial word that is spelled in the way we have done throughout the document.

Comments 7. Line 105: the word "FIBRETHERM" should be written in the same format as used in line 102 for consistency.

Response 7. We have corrected the term Fibretherm in the manuscript to FIBRETHERM to maintain the commercial name of the equipment.

Comments 8. Lines 107-108, 118, 124: a space should be inserted between the numerical value and the temperature unit (^oC) throughout the text.

Response 8. Your suggestion has been taken into account. Temperature units have been reviewed throughout the document.

Comments 9. Line 112. The equation should be formatted appropriately using the Equation Editor to ensure correct presentation and readibility.

Response 9. We have taken your suggestion into account, and it has been corrected accordingly.

Comments 10. Heading 2.5: the phrase "Physical chemistry" should not appear in the heading. Please rephrase the title to accurately reflect the content of the section without referring to the discipline name.

Response 10. We have corrected it to characterization.

Comments 11. Line 147. The unit should be represented as "mL/min" for correct scientific notation.

Response 11. We have reviewed the manuscript considering your suggestion.

Comments 12. Line 152. The words "Laser" and "Cutter" should begin with lowercase initials, written as "laser" and "cutter".

Response 12. We have reviewed the manuscript considering your suggestions.

Comments 13. Lines 164-165. The results section consistently be written in the past tense throughout the manuscript, as it describes completed experiments and observations.

Response 13. The suggestions have been made and corrected.

Comments 14. Line 172. The statement "O-H bending in methyl group" appears scientifically incorrect or unclear. Please verify whether this interpretation is valid, as the O-H group is not typically part of a methyl group (-CH₃).

Response 14. The suggestion has been corrected.

Comments 15. Lines 197-200. Phrases such as a "Blue raw show" "raw purple shows" and "circles shows" lack grammatical clarity and precision. These should be rephrased to convey the intented meaning clearly-perhaps by specifycing what each color or marker represents in the corresponding figure or dataset.

Response 15. The suggestion has been corrected.

Comments 16. Line 206. The word "shows" should be replaced with "showed" to maintain consistency with the past tense used in the Result section.

Response 16. The suggestion has been corrected.

Comments 17. Lines 212-214. These lines are a repetition of Lines 2023-205 and should be deleted to avoid redundancy.

Response 17. The suggestion has been corrected.

Comments 18. Table 3. Table 3 has not been cited in the text; it must be properly cited and discussed at the relevant point in the manuscript.

Response 18. We have removed tables at the reviewers' suggestion, and all tables in the manuscript are now cited in the corresponding text.

Comments 19. FTIR spectra of starch (Fig. 2-b). The source of the starch used for FTIR analysis should be clearly specified. Please indicate whether it was extracted from banana pseudostem or obtained commercially.

Response 19. The type of corn-starch used has been specified in the materials and reagents section, line 101.

Comments 20. Line 239. The word "Show" should be replaced with "Showed" to maintain consistency with the past tense used throughout the Results section.

Response 20. The suggestion has been corrected.

Comments 21. Lines 275, 282, and 298. The word "exhibits" should be replaced with "exhibited" to ensure uniform use of past tense in the Results section.

Response 21. The suggestion has been corrected.

Comments 22. Line 277, 280, 283, 288. A space should be inserted between the numerical value and the temperature unit (^oC) throughout the text.

Response 22. The suggestion has been corrected in the manuscript.

Comments 23. Line 279, 301. The word "displays" should be replaced with "displayed" to maintain consistency with the past tense used throughout the Results section.

Response 23. The suggestion has been corrected in the document.

Comments 24. Results and discussion. The results section (pag 4-10) should consistently be written in the past tense throughout the manuscript, as it describes completed experiments and observations.

Response 24. The suggestion has been corrected in Results section.

Comments 25. Line 339. The term "Expanded Polystyrene Foam" should begin with lowercase initials and be written as "expanded polystyrene foam".

Response 25. The suggestion has been corrected.

Comments 26. Line 340. The word "properties" should be deleted for grammatical accuracy and consiseness.

Response 26. The suggestion has been corrected.

Comments 27. Table 6. Please clarify how the value 9.4 x 10⁴ is comparable with 1.2 x 10⁵. The comparison appears inconsistent or requires further explanation regarding calculation methods, measurement units, or data interpretation.

Response 27. Table 6 was removed and incorporated into the results discussion, with the suggestion clarified.

Comments 28. Conclusion. The conclusion section should be rephrased to improve clarity and coherence. Additionally, all statementes referring to the author's own findings should be written in the past tense, as they describe completed work.

Response 28. The conclusions were shortened and made more precise, highlighting the best results and future projections.

Comments 29. References. Please include the page numbers for the first citation in the reference list to ensure completeness and proper formatting according to the journal's citation guidelines.

Response 29. We have been corrected in accordance with the authors' guidelines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “Development of Biodegradable Bioplastic from Banana Pseudostem Cellulose: A Sustainable Alternative to Non-Degradable Plastics” investigates the banana pseudostem, a byproduct of banana cultivation, as a source of cellulose for bioplastic production. The extracted cellulose was combined with starch and applied the lyophilization method to synthesize bioplastic, and was characterized using FTIR, SEM, DSC, and Tensile strength testing. In general, I note that the document in its current form does not merit publication and requires restructuring, for example:

1. Briefly indicate in the summary how the compressed and non-compressed samples were prepared.
2. The introduction needs improvement. A better state of the art on starch-cellulose composites is required.
3. In my opinion, Table 1 is unnecessary and is not used in the text.
4. Include the starch used in the materials section.
5. The equipment used is described in the preparation of the samples and their characterization, and not as a list of equipment.
6. The use of rheological property terms is inappropriate for describing the tensile test. Indicate the standard and equipment used in this section (2.5.4).
7. The results should be analyzed and compared with other studies; please use references. Fifteen references are not enough for a scientific publication.
8. Is Figure 2 yours or from a reference?
9. It is unclear what you have selected in Figure 4.
10. What are the highest tensile strength values obtained?
11. Tensile properties are not rheological properties.
12. I don't think it's necessarily Table 6.
13. The conclusions should be shorter.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Comments 1: Briefly indicate in the summary how the compressed and non-compressed samples were prepared.

Response 1. The suggested correction has been implemented. Lines 89 to 92.

Comments 2: The introduction needs improvement. A better state of the art on starch-cellulose composites is required.

Response 2. Tha introduction has been improved according to your suggestion.

Comments 3. In my opinion, Table 1 is unnecessary and is not used in the text.

Response 3. Table 1 was removed.

Comments 4. Include the starch used in the materials section.

Response 4. The type of corn-starch used has been specified in the materials and reagents section, line 101.

Comments 5. The equipment used is described in the preparation of the samples and their characterization, and not as a list of equipment.

Responses 5. The modifications have been made, and the equipment has been listed in section 2.2.

Comments 6. The use of rheological property terms in inappropriate for describing the tensile test. Indicate the standard and equipment used in this section (2.5.4).

Response 6. The term has been corrected and the standard and equipment used have been indicated in section 2.7.4.

Comments 7. The results should be analyzed and compared with other studies, please use references. Fifteen references are not enough for a scientific publication.

Response 7. The results were compared with other studies, thus increasing the number of reviewed citations.

Comments 8. Is figure 2 yours or from a reference?

Response 8. If figure 2 is a product of our experimental work.

Comments 9. It is unclear what you have selected in Figure 4.

Response 9. The cellulose particles are those selected in Figure 4, as can be seen in the figure legend.

 Comments 10. What are the highest tensile strength values obtained?

Response 10. In the manuscript, we have included the following (lines 409 to 415): Overall, these results demonstrate that the cellulose-starch bioplastic presents a tunable mechanical profile strongly influenced by processing conditions. Mechanical compression enhances structural integrity and rupture resistance, while the uncompressed form remains suitable for applications requiring lighter, more flexible materials. The ability to achieve mechanical properties similar to or surpassing those of EPS, combined with complete biodegradability, underscores the potential of this bioplastic as an environmentally responsible alternative for short-use packaging and protective materials.

Comments 11. Tensile properties are not rheological properties.

Response 11. The suggested change has been made in the manuscript.

Comments 12. I don't think it's necessarily Table 6.

Response 12. Table 6 was removed.

Comments 13. The conclusions should be shorter.

Response 13. The conclusions were shortened and made more precise, hihlighting the best results and future projections.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewers made the corrections. The paper can be accepted in its present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

NIL

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more comments