Perspectives on Bioenergy Feedstock Development in Pakistan: Challenges and Opportunities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The summary must be rewritten, in order to specify the research objectives, the methods applied and the results obtained (avoid including statistical data in the summary).
The introduction should be supplemented by reporting to other scientific resources. Also, in the final part of it, the structure of the paper must be specified.
The paper presents a series of gaps in the organization of scientific content. Thus, the part of the research methodology and the results and discussions section are missing. 

The authors do not refer in the text to all the figures or there are numberings for figures that do not exist (Ex. Figure 4)
The conclusions are far too general. The limits of the research and the future directions of research are not presented. The scientific contribution of the research is not highlighted and the practical applicability of the research results is not specified either.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for you valuable comments 

Best Regard

Athar Mahmood

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The present study (sustainability-1236292) aimed at identifying and quantifying the bioenergy potential in Pakistan. The authors suggest that there is significant bioenergy potential by growing biomass crops on marginal land and thus avoiding competition with food production.

However, although it could be valuable, the manuscript needs to be significantly revised and improved. There are some studies that should be read and further analyzed by the authors, which investigated (to some extent) the problem/potential. In addition, there are many typos and grammatical errors present in the paper, which makes it difficult to read.

Here are some points that should be addressed:

• What is the country’s energy policy regarding the development of renewables? Please discuss.
• Is it possible that you use more recent statistical data, if available (e.g., it is ~450 kWh/capita according to: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC?locations=PK).
• Figures 2 and 3 are not mentioned/indicated in the main text.
• Please improve the quality of Figure 3. Moreover, what do you mean - “Biomass potential of Pakistan”? As can be seen, the figure shows the heating/calorific value in MJ/kg (it is not clear HHV or LHV) for different biomass fuels. Please correct the caption. Please add the basis as well.
• Figure 4 is missing (page 5). You mention it in the main text, but it is not included.
• In the manuscript, you speak about the 1st- and 2nd-generation bio-fuels. Please give some definitions, which bio-fuels are considered first- and which second-generation (to my best knowledge, e.g., algal fuels are considered as third-generation). Please bring some clarity.
• Please clarify/correct and add the figure for “…125 KW Bio-gasification Plant (Fig. 1)…” (page 5).
• Please revise “…unfortunately neither literature available nor any research is done on biomass and bio-energy in Pakistan.” (page 7). To my best knowledge, there are studies that investigated the topic. Please check.
• Please be consistent: “kWh” vs. “KW” with a capital letter for “kilo”; instead of “Kg” use “kg”; instead of “Ph” use “pH” (see Table 5); instead of “mha” use “Mha” (million = Mega = 10^6); instead of “gallons per acre” use “liters per hectare”; instead of “in table” use “in the table” or “in Table 3”; instead of “C” use “°C”; etc. Please check the author's instructions: “Fig.” vs. “Figure”, both appear in the main text. Further, “Owing to Increased…”, “Biogas yield Potential…”, “The major worldwide Feedstocks…”, etc. Please check the entire manuscript and correct it accordingly.
• Please give references to: “The energy consumption is the index of a society’s prosperity.” (page 2); “…Pakistan which spent almost 7 billion US$ to import on fossil fuels…” (page 2); “…In Pakistan fossil fuel sources like gas and oil have 65% contribution in electricity generation…” (page 3); “…have total biomass potential of 123.47 million ton/year producing high amount of thermal energy and around 20,339 million liter of bioethanol annually.” (page 5); etc.
• Some references appear in the main text, but are not included in the reference list. For example: “United State Energy Information Administration. Accessed in December 2020” (page 3), “Panhwer 2005. Oil seed crop Future in Sindh Pakistan. Digitalverlag GmbH Germany, www.chemlin.c” (page 13). Please check that your text citations match the reference list. Also, check for accuracy!
• Some sentences sound awkward. For example: “Local energy resources of Pakistan we have to depend heavily on imported oil.” (page 3) or “For protuberance of biogas energy in rural areas of country by a community net-work of biogas plants” (page 4). There are many other examples. Please check the entire manuscript and correct it accordingly.
• Please revise/improve the titles. For example: “Waste and arid lands (Marginal), Table for land area that is arid and saline and its environmental” (page 3) or “Types of biofuels and their uses, relevant industry in Pakistan for processing” (page 4).
• Please include all abbreviations in the list of abbreviations (in alphabetical order).

Suggestion:

• Please discuss and add some charts/pies about the current energy use of the country (e.g., primary fuel consumption by source, electricity generation and consumption, etc) in order to better understand the present situation.

Recommended references:

Please analyze the references given below and expand your reference list. There is some valuable information that you can use to improve your manuscript.

• Butt et al. (2013) Bioenergy potential and consumption in Pakistan https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0961953413003553
• Naqvi et al. (2018) Potential of biomass for bioenergy in Pakistan based on present case and future perspectives https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032117311553
• Saghir et al. (2019) Unlocking the potential of biomass energy in Pakistan https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2019.00024/full
• Tareen et al. (2020) Present status and potential of biomass energy in Pakistan based on existing and future renewable resources https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/1/249
• Irfan et al. (2020) Assessing the energy dynamics of Pakistan: prospects of biomass energy https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484719307784
• IRENA (2018) Renewables Readiness Assessment: Pakistan https://www.irena.org/publications/2018/Apr/Renewables-Readiness-Assessment-Pakistan

Please check and improve your manuscript. Please correct grammar and spelling errors, as well as punctuation. I would recommend that you send your manuscript to a professional English editing and proofreading service.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your suggestion and correction. Your comments are realy helpful to improve the manuscript, Thanks again

Best Regard

Athar

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Perspectives of Bio-energy Feedstocks Development in Paki-stan: Challenges and Opportunities

 

Revision

I thank authors to address such an interesting topic concerning the energy challenges. From my point of view, the paper states an ambitious aim in Pakistan to fight Climate change from agricultural point of view. But it lacks of the real structure a scientific paper must follow. It is a deep description of the Pakistan potential concerning biogas production (even per crop-table 2), versus other neighbourhood countries, the Use of bio-energy crops. The paper is a declaration of intent of what is possible to get concerning alternative energy in the country, particularly on arid and semi-arid zones.

There is nothing of originality in this research versus the rest of literature that we all know.

The article states very clearly the problem concerning energy, but it lacks of methodology, results and conclusions within this research.

Regarding the references, I would say that they are not updated since there are just two articles out of 45 total references dating from 2018 and some statistic sources from Pakistan government from 2017/2018.

 

Some other suggestion to improve it apart from that,

The citaed ratios as 58:29 and 43:57 should be written in a different way. And I guess the first one could be a mistake?

Fig 1. This figures states very well the real needs of Pakistan, But it could be improved adding the trend line.

Table 1. I will introduce what is the first column referring to? The region?

From my point of view it is better to read the whole word…not Irr. Area.

Fig 2. This figure should have a graphic scale. Or numeric one.

5. Feedstock development for local environment, Current research in Pakistan

There is a ty po in the word CRPS. In the sentence….”At the same time, the alternate corps like Jatropha”

Sometimes it is written 6.7 Mha and others 6.7 mha. It is M ha

Fig 3. Could be improved by ordering from mayor to minor the thermal energy.

Biogas units?

PKR national currency of Pakistan. Please specify

GHG (The first time writing GHG should appear the meaning-pag 8) Apart from the abstract.

Table 4. What is ASTM? Referred to the method.

Table 5. The Oil content column should have units?

All scientific names are written in italics and the second part (refereeing to the specie) must be written in lowercase.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments, suggestions and correction. your suggested changes really help us to improve manuscript.

Best Regard

Athar Mahmood

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors largely responded to previous suggestions.

Author Response

Dated: 19^th June 2021

Dear editor,

Greetings,

Thank you very much for your time and comments regarding our manuscript (Sustainability-1236292). Our manuscript “Perspectives of Bio-energy Feedstocks Development in Pakistan: Challenges and Opportunities

” has been revised carefully and here we are giving our response to the reviewers’ comments.We have improved the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. All the revisions can be easily identified from manuscript in blur color (Track changes).

Once again thanks for your co-operation and valuable comments and suggestion. Moreover, the effort of the reviewer is highly appreciated. We are hoping for pleasant response and further good comments (if any) from your side.

 

Yours truly,

Dr. Athar Mahmood

Department of Agronomy,

The University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan

*********************************************************************

We are thankful to editor and reviewers for timely completion of review process and providing us with valuable feedback.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response to reviewer # 1:

Dear reviewer, we are grateful to you for your comments and suggestions for the improvement of the article. We are thankful to your efforts and time for highlight key points to further strengthen the idea.

 

 

Comment: The authors largely responded to previous suggestions.

 

Response: Thank you for your time and suggestions

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your revision (sustainability-1236292-peer-review-v2).

Indeed, you made some additions and addressed my comments.

I have to say, after reading your paper again, that it does not have a clear structure, and sometimes you do not know what to expect next.

In order to further improve your paper, at the end of the introduction section, please add what you are going to discuss.

Section 4 is far too short/brief. Please expand it.

Please prepare your paper more accurately, e.g.: “(” in “observed during 2012 ([1, 7, 8]”; “lands[17]” without space, there are many other examples of this kind; “(World Bank, 82016b)”, “{Ahmed, 2016 #33;Butt, 2013 #172}”, “(Hageri, Jawar 2011, JS 2002)”; “table 2” given in lower case; “M ha” (page 2) vs. “Mha” (page 5 and Table 1), it is recommended “Mha”; “m3” should be “m³”; sometimes you use 1000 separator “,” sometimes not; and so on. All these typos and errors make reading unpleasant.

Please define all abbreviations at their first use in the main text (see, e.g., NEPRA (page 2)). Further, please be consistent: “greenhouse gases” (Abstract) vs. “green house gases” found in the main text. The former should be used!

Author Response

Dated: 19^th June 2021

Dear editor,

Greetings,

Thank you very much for your time and comments regarding our manuscript (Sustainability-1236292). Our manuscript “Perspectives of Bio-energy Feedstocks Development in Pakistan: Challenges and Opportunities

” has been revised carefully and here we are giving our response to the reviewers’ comments.We have improved the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. All the revisions can be easily identified from manuscript in blur color (Track changes).

Once again thanks for your co-operation and valuable comments and suggestion. Moreover, the effort of the reviewer is highly appreciated. We are hoping for pleasant response and further good comments (if any) from your side.

 

Yours truly,

Dr. Athar Mahmood

Department of Agronomy,

The University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan

*********************************************************************

We are thankful to editor and reviewers for timely completion of review process and providing us with valuable feedback.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response to reviewer # 2:

Dear reviewer, we are grateful to you for your comments and suggestions for the improvement of the article. We are thankful to your efforts and time for highlight key points to further strengthen the idea.

 

 

Comment: I have to say, after reading your paper again, that it does not have a clear structure, and sometimes you do not know what to expect next. In order to further improve your paper, at the end of the introduction section, please add what you are going to discuss.

 

Response: Keeping in view your comments, structure of all sections has been added in the last paragraphs to make clear what is coming to next.

 

Comment: Section 4 is far too short/brief. Please expand it.

Response: The section 4 is expanded under the light of you suggestions

 

Comment: Please prepare your paper more accurately, e.g.: “(” in “observed during 2012 ([1, 7, 8]”; “lands[17]” without space, there are many other examples of this kind; “(World Bank, 82016b)”, “{Ahmed, 2016 #33;Butt, 2013 #172}”, “(Hageri, Jawar 2011, JS 2002)”; “table 2” given in lower case; “M ha” (page 2) vs. “Mha” (page 5 and Table 1), it is recommended “Mha”; “m3” should be “m³”; sometimes you use 1000 separator “,” sometimes not; and so on. All these typos and errors make reading unpleasant.

Please define all abbreviations at their first use in the main text (see, e.g., NEPRA (page 2)). Further, please be consistent: “greenhouse gases” (Abstract) vs. “green house gases” found in the main text. The former should be used!

 

Response: All correction are done as you suggested in blue font color

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The article still lacks the scientific structure that a research article should have despite of its improvements regarding introduction, recent references etc. In my view, it is more a review paper than an article itself.

Indeed, the made improvements are related to the description of the process, but not to the scientific structure. It has been extended explaining the technologies of biomass conversion to energy, the thermo-chemical conversion, the combustion, gasification, pyrolosis, biochemical process etc., and even the feedstock development in Pakistan, but still the methodology is not explained.

Apart from that, there are other minor suggestions:

• Added references are not in the MDPI format
• Graphics should have all the same structure and layout, lettering etc.
• What is m³N? (point 7) (norm cubic meter)

Author Response

Dated: 19^th June 2021

Dear editor,

Greetings,

Thank you very much for your time and comments regarding our manuscript (Sustainability-1236292). Our manuscript “Perspectives of Bio-energy Feedstocks Development in Pakistan: Challenges and Opportunities

” has been revised carefully and here we are giving our response to the reviewers’ comments.We have improved the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. All the revisions can be easily identified from manuscript in blur color (Track changes).

Once again thanks for your co-operation and valuable comments and suggestion. Moreover, the effort of the reviewer is highly appreciated. We are hoping for pleasant response and further good comments (if any) from your side.

 

Yours truly,

Dr. Athar Mahmood

Department of Agronomy,

The University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan

*********************************************************************

We are thankful to editor and reviewers for timely completion of review process and providing us with valuable feedback.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response to reviewer # 3:

Dear reviewer, we are grateful to you for your comments and suggestions for the improvement of the article. We are thankful to your efforts and time for highlight key points to further strengthen the idea.

 

 

Comment: The article still lacks the scientific structure that a research article should have despite of its improvements regarding introduction, recent references etc. In my view, it is more a review paper than an article itself

Response: Dear Reviewer, your understanding is right; it is a Review paper, so there will be no methodology in review paper. Please be clear that this is review paper not a research article.

Indeed, the made improvements are related to the description of the process, but not to the scientific structure. It has been extended explaining the technologies of biomass conversion to energy, the thermo-chemical conversion, the combustion, gasification, pyrolosis, biochemical process etc., and even the feedstock development in Pakistan, but still the methodology is not explained.

Response: Dear Reviewer, your understanding is right; it is a Review paper, so there will be no methodology in review paper. Please be clear that this is review paper not a research article.

Minor suggestions:

• Comment: Added references are not in the MDPI format

• Response: Done according to the MDPI Journal (Sustainability)

 

• Comment: Graphics should have all the same structure and layout, lettering etc.

Response: Format has been done similar for almost all figures.

 

• Comment: What is m³N? (point 7) (norm cubic meter)

• Response: Explained as you suggested (Norm cubic meter; it is a unit to measure gas flow rate and Norm refers to normal or standard condition for gas measurement which is 0 °C and 1 atmosphere)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your revision (sustainability-1236292-peer-review-v3).

I would just like to mention that the quality of your paper will also reflect the quality of the review process, which also affects the quality of the journal.

Unfortunately, there are still some mistakes and errors. Please read your paper carefully.

Some examples: “Killo” should be “Kilo” and “Kilowatt”; further, full stop “.” after “Resources”, please be consistent, it should be “,”; then, please check Figure 3 “2019-20” has poor visibility; instead of “mono-oxide” use “monoxide”; please be consistent, “3rd” vs “1^st” and “2^nd”; Figure 7, instead of “Kg” use “kg”; Figure 8, please compare, for example, “2010--11” vs “2011-12” with one hyphen; instead of “18 MJ/k” should be “18 MJ/kg”; Table 4, the degree sign is missing; etc. Please check your paper.

Please revise the following statement “…the gasifier is operated at a temperature of 600 °C…”. What kind of gasifier?! To my best knowledge, the gasification process takes place at a higher temperature! Please check the following references: Van Loo and Koppejan (2008) The handbook of biomass combustion and co-firing, or Basu (2018) Biomass gasification, pyrolysis and torrefaction: practical design and theory. Please clarify.

Thanks for understanding.

Author Response

Dear editor,

Greetings,

Thank you very much for your time and comments regarding our manuscript (Sustainability-1236292). Our manuscript “Perspectives of Bio-energy Feed stocks Development in Pakistan: Challenges and Opportunities

” has been revised carefully and here we are giving our response to the reviewers’ comments.We have improved the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. All the revisions can be easily identified from manuscript in green color (Track changes).

Once again thanks for your co-operation and valuable comments and suggestion. Moreover, the effort of the reviewer is highly appreciated. We are hoping for pleasant response and further good comments (if any) from your side.

 

Yours truly,

Dr. Athar Mahmood

Department of Agronomy,

The University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan

*********************************************************************

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response to Reviewer 2 (Round 3)

Dear reviewer, we are grateful to you for your comments and suggestions for the improvement of the article. We are thankful to your efforts and very impressive suggestions and correction to improve manuscript.

Dear Authors,

Some examples: “Killo” should be “Kilo” and “Kilowatt”; further, full stop “.” after “Resources”, please be consistent, it should be “,”; then, please check Figure 3 “2019-20” has poor visibility; instead of “mono-oxide” use “monoxide”; please be consistent, “3rd” vs “1^st” and “2^nd”; Figure 7, instead of “Kg” use “kg”; Figure 8, please compare, for example, “2010--11” vs “2011-12” with one hyphen; instead of “18 MJ/k” should be “18 MJ/kg”; Table 4, the degree sign is missing; etc. Please check your paper.

Response: All the suggested replacement has been done as you suggested.

Please revise the following statement “…the gasifier is operated at a temperature of 600 °C…”. What kind of gasifier?! To my best knowledge, the gasification process takes place at a higher temperature! Please check the following references: Van Loo and Koppejan (2008) The handbook of biomass combustion and co-firing, or Basu (2018) Biomass gasification, pyrolysis and torrefaction: practical design and theory. Please clarify.

Response: Temperature of gasification has been elaborated with reference.

Thanks for understanding.