Eco-Friendly Chitosan Composites: Transforming Miscanthus, Mushroom, Textile and Olive Waste into Sustainable Materials
, Peter El Hage 1,3, Souha Mansour 1, Nicolas Brosse 3, Julia Dimitrova Mihajlova 2, Anne Bergeret 4, Patrick Lacroix 5 and Roland El Hage 1,4,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
please consider the following comments for improving the quality of this manuscript:
-"Textile and Olive": never use a comman before the words "and" or "or" when for simple parathesis of similar things. The liaise word alleady exists. Please check and correct in text where needs to.
-"olive waste as a sustainable alternative to wood": The olive waste includes the olive shell too for mechanical properties instead of the wood? Or it includes brances and leaflets, so the lignocell is present?
-"by-product" is preferable
-"(UNEP n.d.)": is this unclear?
-"Spent mushroom substrate" is purely physical material?
-l. 69-72: please indicate more about the textiles used: cotton and polyester are the largest quantities produced.(jeans namely METISSE, ie. cotton?)
-"oil-free": is preferable
-"", "mm3" as superscript
-mL, μL, s the units. Plus, always keep a space between numbers and units, check and correct where neede.
-replace "(%/% m/m)" with "% wt."
-for all cases replace the mass parameters, pe. ML it is mL
-"W.m-1.K-1" middle dots (insert symbol)
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo great mistakes
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors.
Thank you for your article. Add please anova analysis of results to highlight which differences are significant and also discuss the differences more.
After adding these informations i found article proper for publishing.
Why thermal diffusivity is lowering linearly with porosity?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the manuscript submitted for review, the authors addressed a topic of global significance. The authors' research indicates that recycling olive waste, a major byproduct of the olive oil industry, offers substantial environmental and economic benefits. In their study, the authors explored the potential of olive waste as a sustainable alternative to wood in eco-friendly composite materials, in combination with other residues such as miscanthus, spent mushroom substrate, and recycled textile waste. These materials were used to construct new composite panels, which were then subjected to testing.
The authors noted that composite panels with densities ranging from 685 to 907 kg/m³ were produced using thermocompression, employing various components of olive waste: olive pomace, olive stones, and oil-free pomace, combined with other residues to assess their impact on thermal properties, water absorption, and mechanical properties.
The research conducted by the authors indicates that panels incorporating oil-free pomace exhibited higher rigidity, better internal bonding, and compressive strength. On the other hand, as the authors observed, panels with native olive pomace demonstrated short-term hydrophobic properties under water immersion.
The results presented by the authors suggest that olive waste, particularly oil-free pomace, represents a promising and effective alternative to wood, suitable for dry environments. Composite panels composed of miscanthus and oil-free pomace met the EN 312 standards for general-purpose products in dry conditions, highlighting their potential for sustainable applications.
It is evident that the authors' manuscript and the results they have obtained could find broad application in the development and construction of new materials.
The manuscript has potential, but some revisions and improvements are necessary before publication. The details are provided below.
The abstract requires some modification – I would recommend briefly mentioning what the manuscript will cover and its scope. It should be concise and to the point. Please refrain from including conclusions or results in the abstract.
The introduction is brief but to the point. Congratulations to the authors on this aspect of the manuscript.
The description of the materials and the sample preparation methods is appropriate.
The manuscript includes equations, abbreviations, symbols, and notations. Therefore, I recommend adding a nomenclature section – a complete list of abbreviations, symbols, and notations. The authors can place this either at the beginning of the manuscript or as an additional section at the end.
The numbering of equations should be changed from Roman to Arabic numerals. I suggest writing all equations using an equation editor or an external application such as MathType or another dedicated equation-writing tool. Please correct the equations, and I also suggest changing the multiplication sign from "x" to "•" (dot). All symbols following each equation should be explained – please update the manuscript in this regard.
Please standardize the format of the mathematical equations.
Regarding scientific articles, the term "work" should not be used – I recommend replacing it with terms like "study, paper, manuscript, article, scientific article," etc. Please revise the manuscript accordingly.
For the material used in laboratory tests, the term "sample" should not be used. Instead, following ISO, BS, and ASTM standards, the term "specimen" should be used. Please revise the manuscript in this regard.
I recommend preparing and inserting all charts into the manuscript in vector graphic format – they can be exported from a mathematical application in the appropriate format – vector format.
I recommend adding to the manuscript graphs from bending, compressive, and internal bond strength tests, including information on what signals were recorded during experimental tests, how they were used, and which calculation formulas were applied. It would be beneficial to show example force versus displacement graphs. The exact number of specimens for each test should be provided, along with the population of results obtained for each test (this should be presented in a table), and statistical analysis of the results should be performed (sample size, minimum, maximum, mean, median, standard deviation, spread). Additionally, new tables and figures should be added to the manuscript. I assume the authors tested at least three specimens for each test, condition, dimension, etc.
Line 219 – incorrect cubic meter notation. Please ensure that the correct unit notation is used throughout the manuscript – it is not consistent in all cases. Other notations are also incorrect – for example, "Mpa" should be "MPa." Please correct this in the manuscript.
The literature cited in the manuscript is appropriately selected by the authors. There are no objections in this regard.
The conclusions should be slightly expanded. Please revise them, adding information on future research directions and the potential application of the presented results in solving real-world engineering problems.
The manuscript has potential but requires revisions and improvements. Please consider my suggestions and resubmit the manuscript for review.
I recommend major/minor revision.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed all of my previous comments in the resubmitted version of the paper.
As a result, the paper has become more valuable and readable, likely to capture the interest of readers.
Additionally, they supplemented the paper with some information.
Overall, the paper is engaging, and I have no further substantive comments to make.
Congratulations to the authors. I recommend the paper for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
