Energy Consumption at Size Reduction of Lignocellulose Biomass for Bioenergy
, Gigel Paraschiv 2, Gheorghe Voicu 2,*, Mirela Dinca 2, Olivia Negoita 1, Mihai Chitoiu 2 and Paula Tudor 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled "energy consumption at size reduction of lignocellulose biomass for bioenergy" needs to be much improved before being published.
First of all, a general complete improvement of English language should be made. There are several sentences that need to be reformulated because unclear or because too long and there are also several grammar errores and typos.
For example see lines 11-13, 26-27, 46-48, 54, 60, 98-100, 178-182 and 250-253.
Then the introduction must be re-written or at least deeply improved.
For example, and generally along the whole introduction section, sentences are not linked to each other and look like a list. See lines 25-34 as example. Here bio-refineries is considered as a process, which is actually not true (or at least it is what can be understood).
Line 32: "a percentage of approximately 65% out of the total quantity", of what?
the same in line 33: "very high percentage" of what?
line 36: "significantly lower potential" off what?
line 37: what is meant with ecological performance?
lines 40 and 43 start with the same words, reformulate.
lines 46-47: what is the meaning of this sentence? Evaluate reformulating or deleting
line 56: what does this means? reformulate.
line 60: "can't" must be written as cannot
line 64: what are the mentioned machine variables? what is meant with machine in this sentence?
line 68: in what terms/regards "factors can affect the material"?
line 75: what do the mentioned numbers mean? is there a typo?
What is the innovation brought by this study? What is the difference from previous knowledge about this grinding? This should be stated in the introduction.
Materials and methods:
line 126: there is an "obs" that should be deleted.
results and discussion:
the first sentence in lines 150-153 should be moved somewhere else because it does not refer to the results of this study., the same for lines 159-160.
In general, I cannot understand why focusing only on this characteristic of grinding machines and not give other information about them. Results section results quite obvious and could be shortened, hence I would suggest adding additional information useful to readers. FOr example, why not deepening the previous-last sentence in conclusions about costs?
conclusions:
reformulate line 278 and 289.
Conclusions look quite long and some details could be written in previous sections.
Author Response
We are thankful for the observations regarding our paper that contribute to the improvement of this paper and better understanding of our statements.
The answers for the observations are:
POINT 1. First of all, a general complete improvement of English language should be made. There are several sentences that need to be reformulated because unclear or because too long and there are also several grammar errores and typos. For example see lines 11-13, 26-27, 46-48, 54, 60, 98-100, 178-182 and 250-253.
Answer :English language for this paper was read and corrected by an English professor.
POINT 2. Then the introduction must be re-written or at least deeply improved. For example, and generally along the whole introduction section, sentences are not linked to each other and look like a list. See lines 25-34 as example. Here bio-refineries is considered as a process, which is actually not true (or at least it is what can be understood). Line 32: "a percentage of approximately 65% out of the total quantity", of what?
the same in line 33: "very high percentage" of what?
line 36: "significantly lower potential" off what?
line 37: what is meant with ecological performance?
lines 40 and 43 start with the same words, reformulate.
lines 46-47: what is the meaning of this sentence? Evaluate reformulating or deleting
line 56: what does this means? reformulate.
line 60: "can't" must be written as cannot
line 64: what are the mentioned machine variables? what is meant with machine in this sentence?
line 68: in what terms/regards "factors can affect the material"?
line 75: what do the mentioned numbers mean? is there a typo?
What is the innovation brought by this study? What is the difference from previous knowledge about this grinding? This should be stated in the introduction.
Answer:The introduction was rewritten and completed with new elements, which we want to bring to our readers knowledge and to sustain the affirmations from the second part of the paper. The expressions for all lines indicated were reformulated and corrected.
Regarding the observations on line 32, 33, 36, 37 and all other lines, modifications and corrections were done for a better understanding of the text.
POINT 3. Materials and methods: line 126: there is an "obs" that should be deleted.
Answer: Some sentences that were in material and methods were brought in front and which state the results of other studies. Also, we deleted the “obs”.
POINT 3. results and discussion: the first sentence in lines 150-153 should be moved somewhere else because it does not refer to the results of this study., the same for lines 159-160. In general, I cannot understand why focusing only on this characteristic of grinding machines and not give other information about them. Results section results quite obvious and could be shortened, hence I would suggest adding additional information useful to readers. For example, why not deepening the previous-last sentence in conclusions about costs?
Answer: Some sentences that were in material and methods were brought in front and which state the results of other studies. Also, we deleted the “obs”. Our paper presents mainly aspects regarding mechanical engineering regarding agricultural biomass size reduction process, in order to facilitate future process operations such as bio-refinery and pelleting. The subject of this paper refers mainly, to power requirement respectively specific energy consumption for grinding common types of biomass and less to the economic aspects involved.
POINT4. conclusions: reformulate line 278 and 289. Conclusions look quite long and some details could be written in previous sections.
Answer: We followed your observations and reformulated the lines mentioned. Regarding conclusions, the section is this long because we wanted to better show our results and the fact that they are in accordance to scientific literature mentioned in the introduction.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
A promising paper with good potential, however some mistakes need to considered and the paper needs to be revised.
Suggestions for the Authors:
line 9, pellents are not bioenergy
25 do you mean sustainable or durable?
32 farmyard manure has its own microorganisms, however plants and biomass do not- polysaccharides are more difficult for biotransformation
36 what kind of potential?
40 what do you mean by added value?
43 what cause or application do you mean?
48 caloric or calorific, what are the fractioning methods (the gaps provide information about criterion groups)
53 there can be found publications regarding key issues in modelling and optimisation of biomass pre-treatment; grinding seems not to be of high importance, as is generates high costs
60-64 please cite
no gap should be provided by number and %
75 what do you mean "51.6, 37"?
79-94 Are the data normalized, can they be compared or are they comparable?
124 for dry biomass? please provide units
between number and unit there should be a gap
figure 2 the resolution is low, aech diagram should be described and intriduced in the text.
table 1,2 are the data supported by single experiment? please provide SD
figure 3 missing
figure 5 discussion in the text needs to be supported
the reference list needs to be expanded
Using "us, we, they" should be avoided,
please, revise
Author Response
We are thankful for the observations regarding our paper that contribute to the improvement of this paper and better understanding of our statements.
The answers for the observations are:
POINT 1. line 9, pellents are not bioenergy
25 do you mean sustainable or durable?
32 farmyard manure has its own microorganisms, however plants and biomass do not- polysaccharides are more difficult for biotransformation
36 what kind of potential?
40 what do you mean by added value?
43 what cause or application do you mean?
48 caloric or calorific, what are the fractioning methods (the gaps provide information about criterion groups)
53 there can be found publications regarding key issues in modelling and optimisation of biomass pre-treatment; grinding seems not to be of high importance, as is generates high costs
60-64 please cite
no gap should be provided by number and %
75 what do you mean "51.6, 37"?
79-94 Are the data normalized, can they be compared or are they comparable?
124 for dry biomass? please provide units
between number and unit there should be a gap
Answer 1. The paper was corrected and modified according to the indications mentioned. Additional information was inserted in the paper for a better understanding of the text
Through bio-refinery or even densification the value of biomass (in general) increases. By extracting bioproducts or by transforming biomass in biofuel, biomass gets added value.
This papers subject is not mainly biorefinery but the subject is mechanical pretreatment using grinding process of biomass for facilitating future processing operation such as bio-refinery and densification.
Also, we improved our text as mentioned in all the lines above for a better understanding of results and out research. We eliminated all gaps and provided units were it was the case.
POINT 2.
figure 2 the resolution is low, aech diagram should be described and intriduced in the text.
table 1,2 are the data supported by single experiment? please provide SD
figure 3 missing
figure 5 discussion in the text needs to be supported
Answer: Regarding figure 2 we must say that we printed it and we don’t agree since it seems ok. Also, we consider that graphics presented can be very easily understood by the specialists and people in the field. For table 1 and 2, the experiments were done for individual experiment in which we measured only mean and max value and we don’t have an SD for experimental data.
Figure 3 was not missing, it was just numbered incorrectly.
Regarding figure 5 we have a paragraph that mentions all aspect presented, also being able to read data from the diagram.
POINT 3. the reference list needs to be expanded
Answer: The introduction was improved thus, extending the reference list.
POINT 4. Using "us, we, they" should be avoided,
Answer: We reformulated sentences in order to eliminate “we”, “our”.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has deeply improved however before the publication it still needs to be re read by the native speaker because there are still typos, especially in the abstract and first half of the introduction.
Moreover, although authors wrote they corrected the raised issues, there is still something they wrote as done but they actually didn't. For example, there is again the "can't" instead of "cannot". This can happen since they did not answer point by point to my comments which I think is not a fair point.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for addressing the given comments. The revised paper is easier to understand,.
