Analysis of Energy Potential of Switchgrass Biomass
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Respected Editor:
The current manuscript is to disclose the energy potential of SG and choose the most optimal method for producing bioenergy from this biomass. I believe the manuscript is a good peice of work and well in the scope of the journal. Additionally, the manuscript focuses more on cost effective method of producing energy ( ethanol and pellets). However, author believe that there is a space of improvement in this manuscript before acceptance.
Author decision: Please accept the article after major revision.
1: Abstract: rewrite the entire abstract and add some results
2: abstract: Line 12, production expenses should be replaced with production cost.
3:Keywords: arrange them in alphabetic order
4: Materials: Line 87: Kindly add the names of all chemicals or reagents that are used in the study ( and remove etc).
5: Line 92: it is important to mention the moderate temperature.
6: Line 93: Properly mention the solid/ liquid ratio.
7: 2.4: Please provide the reference of enzyme hydrolysis condition?
8: Line 117: dont you think that the dosage of Cellic CTec-3 was (30 mg per gram of dry sample) is too high?
9: After pretreatment did you discard the extracted hydrolysate? i believe the use of that hydrolysate for other value added products can significatly reduce the overall cost of ethanol production and pellets) then you proposed concept would be called as biorefinery.
10: Enzyme hydrolysis: Line 117-118: it is important to mention the initial activity of cellic ctec 3 in ( FPU/g).
11: At what stage the samples of enzyme hydrolysis were taken?
12: HPLC condition: please provide reference to it
13: Fermentation: Please mention the names and concentrations of the salts that were used for the growth of yeast .
14: how did you maintain the pH of the fermentation? by using what? please mention it
15: Line 144: GC-FID please add reference to it
16: Results: If you have done the experiments in replicates then its important to mention the SD values and error bars in all tables and figures. please add them
17: I believe the results need to be statistically justify and to show the difference between the obtained results.
18: Add more references to justify your results
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study aimed to investigated the energy potential of SG and choose the optimal method for bioenergy production. The paper needs to be further modified and enriched
1. The introduction should be enriched. The author declared that some application limitations of biomass pyrolysis and combustion, the description of enzymatic hydrolysis, which method was studied in this work? It should be clarified clearly in purpose (Line 79). Also, there was no reference basis about the application of PS and PE in this section.
2. Is it reasonable to assess the potential of bioenergy only from thermal energy? What about the emission of pollutants? The author may consider citing the papers including：Journal of Hazardous Materials 466 (2024) 133465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.133465.
3. The conclusion should be modified to effectively summarize the work.
4. Some references in this article are outdated, which should be replaced or enriched with recent references (2019-2024).
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a nice work, using experimental data for different scenarios for the use of SG as a bioenergy crop. I have two major concerns. First, none of the experiments seem to have being performed with replicates, which is essential for the soundness of a scientific work. Without replicates, it is hard to claim that these results are replicable or have significant differences. My second concern is that the results are not well presented in the tables and figures. The author must improve the description of the captions and, if needed, also in the footnotes.
Author should add more information regarding his affiliation.
Abstract: I suggest the author to rewrite or improve a lot the abstract.
Scientific names should be written in Italic.
Lines 34-37: improve for clarity, add references.
Lines 44-52: not always... sugarcane bagasse accounts for a considerable part of the Brazilian energy matrix, and no pre-treatment is needed before it is burned for co-generation, with 50% humidity.
Lines 60-62: add references.
Introduction: I suggest the author to improve the 'purpose', it is too vague... the background is fine, but it's missing more info on the current work.
2.3. --> specify which were the 'chemical composition' analysis
2.5. "peptone and other nutrients..." please, be more specific. Which nutrients? How much in mgL-1?
Results:
Table 1: add a legend for the abbreviations in the caption or as a footnote. It is hard to follow it.
Also, be more descriptive in the other Tables and Figures. They should stand alone.
Figure 2: ml of ethanol per...??
Did you not use replicates? Make it clear in the text why not.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor changes to improve the clarity of the text are needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease add SD values of Yield of PTB in table 1.
Please add SD Values in Figure 1 and also label Y axis appropriately.
Author Response
Please add SD values of Yield of PTB in Table 1. Answer: I did it.
Please add SD Values in Figure 1 and also label Y axis appropriately. Answer: I did it.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has effectively addressed previous questions, however, there is a minor flaw in the introduction. In relation to the impact of acid pretreatment on biomass structure, the author may find useful information in the following document:
Converting and valorizing heavy metal-laden post-harvest hyperaccumulator (Pteris vittate L.) into biofuel via acid-pretreated pyrolysis and gasification,Chemical Engineering Journal,Volume 468,2023,143490,ISSN 1385-8947,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2023.143490.
Author Response
Answer: Thanks for your comments and review of my paper. However, your proposal for the article https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2023.143490 is unsuccessful because, in this article, the acid treatment of Chinese fern species “Pteris vittate L.” was carried out to extract adsorbed heavy metals, and not to improve enzymatic hydrolysis and produce more bioethanol. However, in the introduction, I have added additional information about the acidic and other pretreatments of plant biomass to increase its enzymatic hydrolysability.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author updated the manuscript according to my suggestions.
I still ask the author to add a legend for the abbreviations in each graph and table.
Best
Comments on the Quality of English Language
It's fine, the author should make a proofread and should be ok
Author Response
The author updated the manuscript according to my suggestions. I still ask the author to add a legend for the abbreviations in each graph and table. Answer: I did it.
