Biodegradation of Bioplastic Using Anaerobic Digestion at Retention Time as per Industrial Biogas Plant and International Norms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author,
Here are my comments for this paper:
- Novelty of the paper in the abstract or introduction part is not mentioned. This must be clearly shown with respect to existent literature. The paper is focused on modern approaches in biodegradation but it lack serious novelty as there are numerous papers on the topic (Int J Mol Sci. 2009 Sep; 10(9): 3824–3835; Journal of Polymers and the Environment volume 20, pages673–680(2012) as i.e.). I showed only some papers in 2009 and 2012 but examples could continue. In this context it is a must to show the novelty and innovation of your process or subject.
- Introduction section contains little references. Their number should be increased with other relevant paper in this field.
- What about aerobic degradation? Is there real advanages of anaerobic degradation for PLA and cellulose as compared to aerobic process?
Author Response
The Authors would like to thank reviewer for their feedback that greatly helped to improve the quality of the paper. The point-to-point response to the comments could be found in the attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the paper, the author pointed Biodegradation of Bioplastic Using Anaerobic Digestion at Retention Time as per Industrial Biogas Plant and International Norms. Unfortunately, the manuscript is not very novel and does not possess high scientific quality. Biodegradation of bioplastic is widely described in the literature, and these results just confirm the existing knowledge. The purpose of research is completely incomprehensible. In the manuscript there is a lack of the research hypothesis and conclusions.
Author Response
The Authors would like to thank reviewer for the feedback that greatly helped to improve the quality of the paper. The point-to-point response to the comments could be found in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Title: Biodegradation of Bioplastic Using Anaerobic Digestion at Retention Time as per Industrial Biogas Plant and International Norms.
The authors evaluated the biodegradation potential and biogas production of bioplastics at time spans equal to industrial biogas plants and equal to the international norm NEN-EN 13432:2000. Based on the experiments conducted, the authors claim that at industrial biogas plants, the full potential of biodegradable plastics may not be reached under those conditions. They concluded that the biodegradability on the packaging may not be (fully) achieved. This can be achieved by extending the operational time of biogas plants or aligning the international norms on bioplastics to industrial biogas plants. Overall, The paper seems to be clear for the reader, even with a low number of techniques applied to confirm the hypothesis. However, some comments should be addressed by the authors in the revised version.
Comments:
Line 16: Please read ‘do not’.
Lines 30-36: The authors should update the first part of the introduction with recent studies.
Lines 76-77: Please check the sentence “Further, highlights the discrepancy between the international norms and the industrial practice which could help in making policies on the end life use of bioplastics”
Figure 1 : it would be better to see in the legend for the reader : control (C), foil 1x1cm (1F), foil 2x2 cm (2F) 121 and foil 3x3 cm (3F), rigid 1x1 cm (1R), rigid 2x2 cm (2R) and rigid 3x3 cm (3R).
Line 182-183: I think it will be better to rewrite “So are the claims that these bioplastics are biodegradable.”
Lines 197-200: Authors should imagine some perspective of the present study or other techniques to confirm these findings (e.g., microscopic imagining (bioplastic) or microbial communities deciphering or others).
Author Response
The Authors would like to thank reviewer for the feedback that greatly helped to improve the quality of the paper. The point-to-point response to the comments could be found in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author,
The paper has been improved with some explanation regarding the novelty. In my opinion, it still does not contain sufficient data to sustain novelty. But the manuscript is interesting for the field of bioplastics and it has value.
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept
