Population Dynamics of Methanogenic Archea in Co-Digestion Systems Operating Different Industrial Residues for Biogas Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper reports the population dynamics of methanogenic archaea in codigestion systems in different content of ricotta whey and brewery waste sludge. DNA and rRNA sequences were performed from samples of influents and effluents, respectively. The main path of methane production were analyzed and discussed. This work was designed and conducted well, and would present a valuable contribution to the scientific community.

Before this manuscript be accepted and published, there are still some points should be revised and improved carefully and seriously.

The detailed comments are listed as follows:

1.     First of all, I suggest to adding line number in the manuscript. Now, it is so hard to give the comments conveniently.

2.     2.4 paragraph, change “H2” to “H₂”, and 3.3 paragraph, change “CH4” to “CH₄”. Be caution the subscript throughout the manuscript.

3.     3.2 paragraph, change “36th” to “36^th”.

4.     3.2 paragraph, Figure 2. This figure was too vague to read. I suggest re-plotting this figure.

5.     I cannot find and make sure your conclusion. Generally, it should be clearly and edited as “4. Conclusion”. Please revise it.

6.     In addition, the authors cited previous publication as “According to [39], …”, or started a sentence or paragraph by “[56] demonstrated the prevalence of Methanosaeta over Methanosarcina in mesophilic biodigesters supplied… ”. However, I suggest the authors state the specific conclusion briefly when you argument your research, instead of give a number only.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

sustainability-1897545

Dear Sustainability Editor,

We are submitting a revised version of the manuscript sustainability-1897545 “ Population dynamics of methanogenic archea in co-digestion systems operated different industrial residues for biogas production” by Motta and colleagues.

We want to thank you for the opportunity to revise the manuscript. The corrections were made by using the track change mode in Word. The manuscript has reviewed by LABINT/ UFJF (file attached).

Yours Sincerely,

Comments Reviewer 1:

1. First of all, I suggest to adding line number in the manuscript. Now, it is so hard to give the comments conveniently.

AU: We appreciate your comment. We had not entered it before, because we followed the formatting model available for sending the manuscript. The line numbers have entred in the manuscript.

 

1. 2.4 paragraph, change “H2” to “H₂”, and 3.3 paragraph, change “CH4” to “CH₄”. Be cautionthe subscript throughout the manuscript.

1. AU: We appreciate your comment. The entire document has been edited replacing H2 with H₂ and CH4 with CH₄.

 

1. 3.2 paragraph, change “36th” to “36^th”.

AU: We appreciate your suggestion. All requested changes have been made.

 

1. 3.2 paragraph, Figure 2. This figure was too vague to read. I suggest re-plotting this figure.

AU: We appreciate your suggestion. The Figure 2 has re-plotting and inserted in the manuscript.

 

1. I cannot find and make sure your conclusion. Generally, it should be clearly and edited as “4. Conclusion”. Please revise it.

AU: We appreciate your comment. The file has been reviewed and edited. (Line 420).

 

1. In addition, the authors cited previous publication as “According to [39], …”, or started a sentence or paragraph by “[56] demonstrated the prevalence of Methanosaeta over Methanosarcina in mesophilic biodigesters supplied… ”. However, I suggest the authors state the specific conclusion briefly when you argument your research, instead of give a number only.

AU: We appreciate your comment. The document has been revised and edited. (Lines 69, 91, 141, 237, 252, 272, 283, 295, 331, 340, 358, 360, 362, 396, 405).

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your manuscript which does indeed add significant value to the research area. Besides all its strengths, I'd highly recommend two improvements in your manuscript before publishing.

1. Cited references

You write in your manuscript that we can witness an increasing number of research in relation of anaerobic biodigestion, in the last years. From your cited references, however, only 21% is referring to research of the last 5 years, and very few of the last 3 years. I would definitely recommend you to update your literature and put your research results in the international context of novel research results.

2. Importance of your research results

Please, argue for the importance of your research results versus current technologies in the market. You correctly start your first paragraphs of your introduction by stating the importance of the research field. But there is a lack of proper (and very recent) references to current technologies that could serve as benchmark to your results, as well.

Best wishes,

Reviewer

Author Response

sustainability-1897545

Dear Sustainability Editor,

We are submitting a revised version of the manuscript sustainability-1897545 “ Population dynamics of methanogenic archea in co-digestion systems operated different industrial residues for biogas production” by Motta and colleagues.

We want to thank you for the opportunity to revise the manuscript. The corrections were made by using the track change mode in Word. The manuscript has reviewed by LABINT/ UFJF (file attached).

Yours Sincerely,

Comments Reviewer 2:

1. Cited references. You write in your manuscript that we can witness an increasing number of research in relation of anaerobic biodigestion, in the last years. From your cited references, however, only 21% is referring to research of the last 5 years, and very few of the last 3 years. I would definitely recommend you to update your literature and put your research results in the international context of novel research results.

AU: We appreciate your suggestion.We have updated the literature with new research results..

 

1. Importance of your research results. Please, argue for the importance of your research results versus current technologies in the market. You correctly start your first paragraphs of your introduction by stating the importance of the research field. But there is a lack of proper (and very recent) references to current technologies that could serve as benchmark to your results, as well.

AU: We appreciate your comment. We've updated the main document with recent references that support the results.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx