Quantification and Determinants of Carbonization Yield in the Rural Zone of Lubumbashi, DR Congo: Implications for Sustainable Charcoal Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This research seeks to evaluate the efficiency of carbonization practices among charcoal producers in the rural area of Lubumbashi, DRC.

The research topic is highly relevant, as charcoal represents a renewable energy source. However, as demonstrated in this study and others, numerous challenges persist in enhancing the efficiency of the wood-to-charcoal conversion process.

Several aspects of the research require refinement:

- Succinctly articulate the contribution of this research to the expansion of knowledge concerning charcoal.

- Specify the exact type of carbonization kiln used and elucidate its operational principles.

- Propose specific recommendations to enhance carbonization efficiency, such as controlling wood moisture (by exposing it to sunlight for a period) and implementing separation by tree species and classification by diameter. These variables, extensively discussed in the literature, significantly influence charcoal yield.

- Clearly state that the findings are contingent upon geographical location and local carbonization practices, rendering them non-generalizable to other regions of the planet.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

please find attached the responses  to your comments.

 Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper describes charcoal production issues. Some major remarks:

1. Info of universities are incomplete (L7-11).

2. Title is slightly different from the content of manuscript. You talk about carbon generation, but title is more related to global carbon cycle. 

3. Abstract contains "DRC" which is not clear what is it.

4. All text contains many typo and grammar errors, such as indexes, gaps, punctuations and etc. (e.g. L18, L80).

5. References are outdated especially when talking about current economic situation. E.g. Ref 3; 4; 5. Others are not related to the topic or are not recommended for scientific research (ref. 3; 4).

6. Aim is not clearly defined.

7. L223-224 has numbers in wrong format.

8. Results are very variating with standard deviation of more +/ 50 %. In my opinion the research must be reviewed and methodology must be extended to explain or exclude some results of such high deviation.

9. In the last sentence of introduction you suppose some traditional feedstock, but do not analyse it, so why that sentence is needed (L89-91).

10. Conclusions suggest to stop producing charcoal in such ineffective way. As well this research has no scientific impact on the world, society or environment, thus it is questionable the importance of the paper for science.

English need extensive corrections.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find in attached the responses to your comments. Regarding the English language as previously recommended, a thorough revision has been conducted

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of the research work and manuscript is really interesting and provides new information. However there are some issues to be addressed towards its quality improvement before publication. Please provide the name of species for miombo tree in the abstract. Pay attention to numbers that need to be superscipts. In lines 65-67, please add the factor of temperature increase rate. In the introduction chapter, please add a brief line refering to chemical composition of wood (cellulose, hemicelluloses, lignin, extractives and ash content) and the significance of lignin component in calorific value direction, incorporating the relevant study of https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.2235 to support such a statement. In line 75, the weighing method is close affected by moisture content and this should be highlighted. In line 85, in which way it is quantified? You rather avoid active voice and descriptions using "we did that, we did this". In the end of introduction, the objectives are not very clear, please provide more information on the aims of the work and potential significance /practical meaning of the results. Leave space between the value and celisius symbol. Again in materials-methods provide the species of wood (latin scientific name). Provide information related to the equipement used, devices etc including the model, manufacturer and country. The "Ref." is not necessary, please remove it. You should add a relevant picture of these kilns and the measured/recorded raw material, as an evidence of your work and increase in attractiveness of the article by the readers. Provide DOI number to all of the sources/references used. In conclusions chapter, provide more specific details on findings, the conclusions are much generic. For example what is the main species of charcoal etc. these information should be highlighted in conclusions as well. 

English language use is acceptable. Only avoid the active voice description, use instead passive voice.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find in attached the responses to your comments.

Regarding the English language as previously recommended, a thorough revision has been conducted.

Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript was improved.

Minor English is needed.

Reviewer 3 Report

As I have checked the authors have implemented the proposed changes in the revised version of manuscript towards the improvement of their work. Almost all the changes have been implemented and in my opinion, the manuscript is well-prepared and organized enough to be accepted for publication in this journal. I remain at your disposal for any clarification.

Comprehensive and clear enough, acceptable quality.