New Analytical Expressions of Concentrations in Packed Bed Immobilized-Cell Electrochemical Photobioreactor
and Michael E. G. Lyons 5,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper was revised according to the journal rules. The topic treated was focused on new analytical expressions for the immobilized cell concentrations in PBR.
Few revisions are required and they are reported below:
- abstract must be revised, there are missing parts and results to be inserted
- check that all acronyms and parameters are added to the nomenclature list with the proper unit of measure
- there are few minor errors that can be solved in the structure of the draft paper
- the introduction section should consider the PBR and the related mechanisms
- gaps in the introduction section must be highlighted
- the results section must be discussed and improved
- tables presented are not commented and not compared to results already published
- appendix must be described
The paper must be revised deeply
Author Response
Please refer to attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript New analytical expresions of concentrations in packed bed 2 immobilized-cell electrochemical photobioreactor is an interesting approach to applied mathematics for the benefit of improving the operation of electrochemical bioreactors. The introduction is brief; the aim of the research is well defined. However, I recommend the authors to develop the introductory part with the presentation of some similar approaches studied by other scientists. Research methodology is presented in depth, the analytical methods investigated are exposed with professionalism. Since my expertise is not focused on mathematical sciences, I cannot express my competent opinion regarding the correctness of the detailed analytical expressions. I believe that the other reviewers will have a more pertinent point of view in this regard. The obtained results are presented accurately and are accompanied by clear, eloquent graphic images. The conclusions are synthetic; they precisely point out the main findings of the study.
Although my skills are not fully compatible with the topic addressed, my opinion is that the paper is developed with professionalism. It is useful as a theoretical basis of study for researchers and students; it has also high practical applicability.
I would ask the authors to polish and correct the text, there are a numerous minor spacing mistakes (e.g. lines 257, 258, 276, 277, 281, 301, etc.).
Author Response
Please refer to attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has focused on development of a New analytical expressions of concentrations in packed bed immobilized-cell electrochemical photobioreactor. The manuscript cannot be published in its present form, as it presents a deficient and unclear introduction, methodology, and discussion.
My critical remarks are below:
1. Please use the correct template for Electrochem, the manuscript must contain: Introduction; Materials and Methods; Results; Discussion and Conclusions
2. The explanation in the literature review section needs to have more depth. You need to critically review the previous related studies and reveal the knowledge gaps and inconsistencies in the literature. Then, you need to relate it to the objectives of the study. The authors need to emphasise the research novelty and research significance of the study
3. The Keywords are written with different font.
4. The equation must be written with the same font and size.
5. The language of the manuscript requires a lot of attention, contains many errors, and requires proofreading by a native English speaker.
6. The manuscript does not present a discussion, it is a simple technical report, there is no comparison with other authors, it does not explain the results obtained.
The language of the manuscript requires a lot of attention, contains many errors, and requires proofreading by a native English speaker.
Author Response
Please refer to attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments from Reviewer
Manuscript ID: electrochem-2498002-peer-review-v1
Title: New analytical expresions of concentrations in packed bed immobilized-cell electrochemical photobioreactor
The current form's presentation of methods and scientific results is unsatisfactory for publication in the Electrochem journal. The minor and significant drawbacks to be addressed can be specified as follows:
1. Title. Expresions ---> expressions.
2. Keywords. Between keywords: “.” “;” “,”??? Chaos!!!
3. Lines 35 and 36. [2] [3] ???
4. Line 46. are presented ---> are presented).
5. Fig. 1. (i) ---> (a) (ii) ---> (b).
6. Fig. 1, figure captions. Please explain in more detail what (a) and (b) mean.
7. Line 143, “4.1 Concentration of Glucose (substrate)”. Bold!!! See, line 102.
8. Line 173. See point No. 6.
9. Tabs. 1- 8. Tables should be moved to supporting information.
10. References. Literature should also be standardized: the size of letters in the titles of journals, initials of names, the size of letters in the titles of articles
11. 18 self-citations [1,2,6-11,14-16,23-26,28,29,31] on 37 references 48.6% (not acceptable).
Sincerely,
The reviewer.
Author Response
Please refer to attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please refer to attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper was revised and it can be accepted for publication
fine
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Reviewer 3 Report
From my point of view, the authors corrected the material errors of the manuscript but did not improve the scientific quality of the work.
The manuscript is stil a simple technical report, there is no comparison with other authors, it does not explain the results obtained.
The sections should be separated and not as they are presented now.
Author Response
Please note attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
My comments have been appropriately addressed in the revised manuscript.
Author Response
Please see attached file
Reviewer 5 Report
The authors have improved the quality of the manuscript. It can be accepted
Author Response
Please see attached file
