Chemical Composition and Optimization of Liquefaction Parameters of Cytisus scoparius (Broom)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

The submitted manuscript reported that the chemical composition and optimization of Liquefaction Parameters of Cytisus Scoparius (Broom). I think the work is a regular research work in the biomass liquefaction. The liquefaction yield is good as compared to other biomass. In addition, the authors investigate the effects of different particle sizes on the liquefaction, this is interesting and useful. However, I think the following issues should be solved prior to final consideration.

 

1. How to calculate liquefaction yield? Please describe it in detail.

2. There seems to be no innovation in the liquefaction method, which is a classical method, and the liquefaction temperature is 160 and 180 ^oC. Why? Please explain it.

3. Fig. 2, Why is the yield suddenly decreased when the particle size is small (60-80 mesh)?

4. What is the composition of the liquefaction product? GC-MS data are preferred. Or molecular weight, functional group determination. If not, what is the difference between liquefaction products under different conditions?

5. The characterization technique is relatively crude, FT-IR is a very rough characterization, especially for mixtures. I suggest that the authors determine the properties of the polyOLS, the number of hydroxyl groups and so forth, and the NMR characterization, so as to provide useful data.

Author Response

First of all the authors would like to thank the reviewers for their time in reviewing this article that as surely resulted in its improvement.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Title:

Chemical Composition and Optimization of Liquefaction Parameters of Cytisus Scoparius (Broom)

 Author: Luísa Cruz-Lopeset al.

 General

The paper analyses the chemical and structural composition of a non-native invasive tree species. The paper is clearly and understandably written and has some practical value as an indicator of chemical composition of broom.

Specific

L16.- »In this context this work aims to determine possible valorizations of Cytisus Scoparius” – when first naming tree species, latin and nonlatin name should be given.

L23 – “Results show that Broom is mainly composed of cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin…” – all tree spcies are mainly composed of cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin. What is here different from other species?

L39- “Therefore, Broom, also called Scotch broom or English broom is an example of an invasive plant” – same as in line 16. When first naming both designation should be used.

L52 – »eucalyptus (26%), cork oak (23%) and pine” – latin names?

L209 – Figure3; the name of X asis??

L244 – “Results show that it takes only 30 minutes to obtain a good liquefaction yield of 55.8 %,” – should not be 80%

L331- Figure 9.-The text is the same as in Figure 8??

Author Response

First of all the authors would like to thank the reviewers for their time in reviewing this article that as surely resulted in its improvement.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

I think this article is acceptable

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is interesting and important. Several inaccuracies were found. Why this particular plant was chosen for research?

In methods, word approximately can not be used.

Line 155 is please check period at the end of a sentence. 

Figure 2, will more clear to the reader that the units of measurement would be provided in the title size (mesh). Also, font size and style should be uniform.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This present manuscript entitled “Chemical Composition and Optimization of Liquefaction Parameters of Cytisus Scoparius (Broom) ” investigated that chemical composition and the effects of solvent ratio，temperature and time on liquefaction of Cytisus Scoparius (Broom), and the results have proven that Broom can be a valuable material that once liquefied can be latter used for the manufacture of goods to substitute petroleum- based products such as for instance polyurethane foams. The structure of the manuscript is simple and clear. However, the content needs to be further enriched, and the relevant charts are still to be improved, not enough to be published. Therefore, it is not recommended to be accepted by forests if the authors can solve these problems.

The suggestions and issues are listed as below:

1.        The abstract needs to be refined, and it is not necessary to write the details of standard method for each test. The main results of this work should be stated.

2.        The keywords acid catalyst is not exactly,

3.        The author's novelty is not very clear. The main features, purpose and significance should be emphasized in the “Introduction” .

4.        Why“The fractions obtained were dried in a greenhouse at 100 °C for 24 hours before each test.”?

5.        Figure1 is poor and simple, can not show the details scheme of the determination of the chemical composition of CsB.

6.        The line colors of “init” in Figures 6 and 7 are too similar to those of "60" and "180℃". The unit of "℃" in the legends of Figures 7 and 9 and the digital layout in Figure 9 are suggested to be adjusted.

7.        In line 131-132, "Temperature ranged between 140℃and 200℃ and clarification time from 15 to 120 min." The range and results of temperature and time are inconsistent with the range under discussion. Please explain why.

8.        Why the solvent ratio is 1:5, 1:10 and 1:12 instead of 1:5, 1:10 and 1:15? Results The melting time is 15min, 30min and 60min in the discussion, so why not make another 45min?

9.        In line 193-197, it is found that the solvent ratio of 1:5 and 1:10 is only 1% different under the same other conditions. Why is the solvent ratio of 1:10 adopted in the subsequent characterization and experimental research?

10.    Why 40-60 mesh fraction presented the best result？What are the standards for assessment of the best result?

11.    The experimental basis of "a higher amount of solvent improved the satisfaction percentage." is somewhat insufficient only by using the ratio of three solvents.

12.    The experimental part is not very details and the result/discussion part remains quite descriptive, lack of deep explaination.

 

13.    Please check the format of some of references carefully.

Reviewer 3 Report

The aim of the work was articulated in the abstract only. There is no clearly articulated purpose of the work in the text of the publication. Moreover, in my opinion, defining the purpose of the work as determine possible valorizations of Cytisus Scoparius is too imprecise for a research paper.

The structure of the work is quite simple, which makes it quite transparent. But the drawback is that in it is not original. It does not explain any research hypothesis and does not try to prove or contradict any research hypothesis. The entire work is an expert study, based mainly on standard methods, carried out strictly according to specific methods.

The results are correctly described and interpreted, but this is, in my opinion, too little for an original creative work.

Fig. 1. is incomprehensible and the pictures are not legible. It is not known what idea the authors had for such a graphic representation of the chemical composition determination.

I am not sure that the pictures in it are the authors' work.

There is no basic statistical analysis of the developed results.

There is no justification for the FTIR analysis performed.

The formulated "Conclusions" are not conclusions but only observations based on the obtained results. There is no clearly defined research goal and no formulated research hypothesis, so it is difficult to draw conclusions.

Apart from one sentence concerning the use of the liquefied raw material for the production that could replace polyurethane foams, there are no specific examples of the use of the results of this work. Although this example about polyurethane foams seems doubtful, as it appears only at the end of the work in the so-called conclusions.