Reuse of Barley Straw for Handmade Paper Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

line 483: replace "if compare" by "if compared"

line 510: "It is well known tha cellulose is ..." instead of . "We all know...

line 544: pulp and not "poulp"

line 622: needs clarification; line 635 "shown" and not "show"

Author Response

Responses Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 483: replace "if compare" by "if compared"

Response: Correction was done

Line 510: "It is well known tha cellulose is ..." instead of . "We all know...

Response: This paragraph was deleted according the suggestion of reviewer 2

Line 544: pulp and not "poulp"

Response: Correction was done

Line 622: needs clarification; line 635 "shown" and not "show"

Response: word was changed to shown.

 

Thanks for supporting with the review

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. On page 2, in line 60: ... paper is still essential, ... Why is so? Please define.

Response: This was answered into text. However, the paper is essential due to the increasing demand in textile, packing and art industries, amonr others.

 

2. On page 2, in lines 90 and 92: This study ... (line 90) This study ... (line 92) Start the sentence differently for the second one in line 92.

Response: This was corrected.

 

3. On page 3, in line 108: ... by dry method ... At what climate conditions is dry method defined?

Response: This dry method correspond to a sieving carried out without water. Also, the sieving is executed at normal atmospheric conditions.

 

4. On page 4, in line 128: This process was ... Process was ..., without ”This”.

Response: This was corrected

 

5. On page 4, in line 149: ... air dry for 12 hours, ... Conditions for air dry were T and RH?

Response: As was pointed in the sieving method, this was done at normal atmospheric conditions

 

6. On page 5, in line 167: ... 30 kV ... Is this correct? Usually, the 10 kV energy is used for paper, since they do tend to get damaged under such high voltage.

Response: Samples was coated using a gold film to improve conductivity, so the voltage used did not damage the sample and also served to improve image quality.

 

7. On page 5, in Figure 2: … (Source Author) … and also names of x and y axis are given just in units (microns and percentage) and not in marks for what is presented.

Response: Figure was modified and improved

 

8. On page 5, in line 184: … is more important … Explain why is more important.

Response: There is a mistake in the editing. This means that the granulometric analysis gave as major particle size distribution the range between 5 and 20 mm.

 

9. On page 5, in line 187: … can be observed. Why is so?

Response: Also was a mistake and was modified

 

10. On page 5, in line 192: 8.1% by moisture. Meaning?

Response: These values represent the content of moisture for each sample.

 

11. On page 5, in line 193: … from 5.35 to 9.10… UNITS missing

Response: This was corrected in the text

 

12. On page 5, in line 193: [25, 26, 27] When referring to several literature sources, and are in consequence numbers, they should be written as [25–27] and not as individual number.

Same happens a few more times over the article, i.e., page 6 in line 202–203 [25, 26, 27], etc.

Response: All text was reviewed and corrected in this aspect

 

13. On page 6, in line 202: … from 1.3 to 7.72 for straw … Units missing and numbers should have the same decimal numbers (1.30 to 7.72).

Response: This was corrected

 

14. On page 6, in line 203–204: … is a good factor, … is not of interest in the paper

industry, … What did you mean by that and why does not paper industry have interest in something ”good”?

Response: This was pointed in the text

 

15. On page 6, in line 216: As can … As IT can … (missing ”it”).

Response: Corrected

 

16. On page 6, in line 220: … from 56.3 to 80.1 … Units are missing.

Response: Corrected

 

17. On page 7, in line 232: … from 0.49 to 15.2 … Units are missing.

Response: Corrected

 

18. On page 7, in line 234–235: … must range between 1–10%. Explain why!

Response: The adequate range for this parameter is 1-10, we found a 6% which is adequate and is into the range mentioned

 

19. On page 7, in line 242: … affects the color … Only color? How does the lignin affects the physical-mechanical properties?

Response: This was pointed in text.

 

20. On page 8, in line 272: … (0–17.7 … Units are missing.

Response: Corrected

 

21. On page 8, in line 273: … of 7.7(units missing)…, 9.6(units missing)

Response: Corrected

 

22. On page 8, in line 274: … 11.4(units missing)

Response: Corrected

 

23. On page 8, in line 276: … (3.7–7.6(units missing)

Response: Corrected

24. On page 8, in line 278: … 43.8(units missing), 26(units missing), 21 (units missing)

Response: Corrected

 

25. On page 9, in line 315: … similar TO our …

Response: Corrected

 

26. On page 10, in line 343: In Figure 4 … Until this point, all the mentions of figures were written with small capitals. Unify. 2

Response: This was corrected

 

27. On page 10, in line 350–357: EDS … [52–56]. The whole section should be placed in Materials and Methods.

Response:  Ok. This was done.

 

28. On page 10, in line 374: … (more than 450 g/m2). Missing literature citation.

Response: Citation added.

 

29. On page 11, in line 388: … 58–100 … Units missing.

Response: Corrected

 

30. On page 12, in lines 404–417: The whole section should be placed in Materials and Methods.

Response: This was done

 

31. On page 12, in lines 413–414: … kPa which is kilo Pascal. We know the meaning of kPa.

Response: Corrected

 

32. On page 12, in line 414: … from these formula … Where is the equation, not formula?

Response: This was mentioned in text which was changed to Materials and Methods.

 

33. On page 12, in lines 427–440: The whole section should be placed in Materials and Methods.

Response: Correction was done passing part of this section to Materials and Methods, remaining the important part for the discussion of results.

 

34. On page 12, in lines 448–449: … 0.25 kPam2 / g … It should be written 0.25 kPam2/g, etc.

Response: Corrected

 

35. On page 13, in line 460: … values similar to those … What is that number?

Response: This was pointed in text

 

36. On page 14, in line 479: … image 2i and 5g … Should it be 5i?

Response: Corrected

 

37. On page 14, in line 491: … different treatment. i.e.?

Response: Included

 

38. On page 14, in line 496: … intensities. Figure 5. A dot to much.

Response: Corrected

 

39. On pages 14–15, in lines 498–509, 514–515, 518, 521, 524, 528, 537: cm-1; it should be expressed cm–1, as you have write it correctly on page 16, in line 554.

Response: Corrected

 

40. On page 15, in line 510: We all know that a cellulose is a polymer. Delete this sentence.

Response: Ok. It was done

 

41. On page 15, in line 530: … in figure 15, … You don’t have Figure 15.

Response: Corrected

 

42. On page 15, in line 540: … in the image … … in the image (Figure ?) …

Response: Corrected

 

43. On page 16, in line 569: … and home method cellulose. What is ”home-made cellulose?”

Response: Corrected

 

44. On page 17, in line 593: … up to 110 degrees; 110°

Response: Corrected

 

45. On page 18, in line 622: … show. shown

Response: Corrected

 

46. On page 19, in line 683: … greatest … greater

Response: Corrected

47. Overall I am missing in discussion a bit more expression in numbers, values, and not just overlapping, etc. Did the author meant to replicate the values of other researchers, because they are always referring to the literature review.

Response: It was really a discussion of the results that several authors have shown in recent years, and it was not intended to replicate anything, just to evaluate the behavior of barley straw in the production of handmade paper.

Thanks for the supporting for the review

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The topic of the manuscript "Reuse of barley straw for handmade paper production" is interesting and relevant for the applications in the field of packaging and general graphic technology. Referencing is extensive, and the results have pointed to barley straw as an appropriate alternative raw material for the handmade paper production. In my opinion, the article should be published, but, if after addressing some issues and expanding the research, if possible:

1. English requires extensive corrections and editing.

2. Please, use the appropriate abbreviation for Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) throughout the manuscript - was the FTIR-ATR spectroscopy used?

3. Reformulate the chamaterpter 2.2. - the sentences are not clear.

4. Figure 4 is illegible.2

5. The paragraph in lines 350 - 357 belongs in Materials and Methods section.

6. How many measurements were performed for the analyses presented in Table 4?

7. In 3.6., "-1" in "cm-1" should be written as superscript.

8. How could the increased absorption of water (lines 533 - 536) influence the properties of the produced paper?

9. The research should be expanded to include other important properties of the produced paper, since the presented research is an applied one, with the product possibly being printed on and used in the real system as an alternative to some other types of papers. With that in mind, some important properties should be investigated and presented, specifically: whiteness, tensile strength, water absorptiveness, and possibly the changes in whiteness after the UV ageing due to lignin content, especially if bleaching process is eliminated.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the manuscript "Reuse of barley straw for handmade paper production" is interesting and relevant for the applications in the field of packaging and general graphic technology. Referencing is extensive, and the results have pointed to barley straw as an appropriate alternative raw material for the handmade paper production. In my opinion, the article should be published, but, if after addressing some issues and expanding the research, if possible:

1. English requires extensive corrections and editing.

Response: All document was reviewed pointing attention to the English editing and grammar.

2. Please, use the appropriate abbreviation for Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) throughout the manuscript - was the FTIR-ATR spectroscopy used?

Response: This was corrected throughout the text

3. Reformulate the chamaterpter 2.2. - the sentences are not clear.

Response: This was reviewer and corrected.

4. Figure 4 is illegible.2

Response: Figure was re - edited and now is more clear

5. The paragraph in lines 350 - 357 belongs in Materials and Methods section.

Response: This paragraph was changed to the mentioned section.

6. How many measurements were performed for the analyses presented in Table 4?

Response: There were done 5 measurements for each sample

7. In 3.6., "-1" in "cm-1" should be written as superscript.

Response: This was corrected in all the text

8. How could the increased absorption of water (lines 533 - 536) influence the properties of the produced paper?

Response: Explanation was added to the text.

9. The research should be expanded to include other important properties of the produced paper, since the presented research is an applied one, with the product possibly being printed on and used in the real system as an alternative to some other types of papers. With that in mind, some important properties should be investigated and presented, specifically: whiteness, tensile strength, water absorptiveness, and possibly the changes in whiteness after the UV ageing due to lignin content, especially if bleaching process is eliminated.

Response: All comments are of great interest. However, due to the pandemic problem that also affected us, many of the experiments which you proposed were not carried out due to the lack of financial support and access to lab. We think that the most innovative part of this research was the use of the barley straw which is a residue.

 

Thanks for supporting with the review

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The manuscript has been improved and can be published, after the thorough English check and corrections.

Author Response

My name is Eleanor Occeña.  I was born in Cleveland, Ohio, USA.  I have lived in Mexico since 1981.  I can speak and write Spanish well and have learned the differences between Spanish and English to the extent that I have done translation work, although teaching has been my expertise.

I have a Masters degree in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) from Leeds University in the UK.  I have also earned my B.A. in English Language Teaching from Thames Valley University in London.  I have co-authored two books in English and have also written papers when I worked as a research professor at the Linguistics Department of the Autonomous University of the State of Hidalgo.  According to Academia, edu, I have six citations from authors of different universities.  Though just a few, I consider that these can show that I have written papers in English and am capable of reviewing and correcting mistakes or errors n works written by non-native speakers of English.

I am now retired after 27 years of teaching English to Mexican learners and the subjects of the ELT learning program to undergraduate future teachers of English.

I reviewed, checked corrected the English structure and composition of the paper titled Reuse of Barley Straw for Handmade Paper Production.  During the process of reviewing this work, what was usually notable, were the sentences, phrases and words with mother tongue interference, which is common in translations from one language to another.

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

n this paper, the authors reported the preparation and evaluation of handmade paper using spent barley straw and recycled paper for sustainable practice.

The characterization of the handmade paper is performed by various experimental methods such as granulometric analysis, SEM, IR, and XRD.

They also investigated the chemical composition, physical properties (grammage, paper resistance to bursting, and thickness) of the paper.

It seems that the reported barley straw is favorable raw material for the paper. However, there are many comments as follows.

Comments

1. Line 165-170

I do not find the experimental results.

2. Table 3

I do not find the data of β-cellulose.

3. Table 6

The paper resistance to bursting will depend on thickness of paper.

How were the data of table 6 corrected by thickness of paper?

4. Figure 3

The figure is not clear.

Line 550-558

The relations between the resistance to bursting and crystallinity should be mentioned clearly.

 

Minor comments

1. Line 79

823 F → …K

2. Line 86-118

NaClO2 → NaClO₂

H2SO4 → H₂SO₄

And so on.

3. Line 94

B- , Γ → β- , γ-

4. Line 146

10 Kg → 10 kg

5. Line 271

50.36 → 49.0       ?

6. Line 329-330, figure 2 (figure caption)

Which notation is right?

7. Line 358-363, table 5

I do not see H, I in the table 5.

8. Line 395

0.03 → 0.3         ?

9. Figure 4

Amate Craft Paper → i) Amate Craft Paper

10. Line 476

recycled → barley straw       ?

11. Line 444

424 → 4240         ?

12. Line 491-493

table 7 show…

I do not find the data in the table7.

Author Response

I would like to give you an account of the attention given to the comments suggested.

1. Line 165-170

I cannot find the experimental results.

R. lines 165 to 170 were deleted.

2. Table 3

I cannot find the data for β-cellulose.

R. Technique, TAPPI 203 om-88 was applied. For the determination of beta-cellulose the following formula was applied:

% beta cellulose = 100- (%alpha cellulose + % gamma celludose)

3. Table 6

The resistance of the paper to bursting will depend on the thickness of the paper.

How was the data in Table 6 corrected for paper thickness?

R. The data was corrected by standardization in paper manufacturing.

 

4. Figure 3

The figure is not clear.

the quality of the figure was improved

Line 550-558

Relationships between burst strength and crystallinity should be clearly mentioned.

R. The pafarro was rewritten as follows “Regarding bursting strength, we found that sheets with barley straw improve their bursting strength by increasing the percentage of crystallinity of P100-R0 (cellulose) barley straw paper 100% - Recycled 0% cellulose, which have 37.1% and the crystallite size to 15 Å.and with angles σ, 12°, 35° and 46°. which is shown in figure 7.”

Minor comments

1. Line 79

823 F →… K

R. the change from F to K was made (the oven temperature is 1100 °C --1373 K)

Línea 86-118

NaClO2 → NaClO ₂

H2SO4 → H ₂ SO ₄

Etcétera.

R. subscripts and superscripts were added to all units and formulas

3. Líne 94

B-, Γ → β-, γ-

R. The change was made

4. Líne 146

10 kg → 10 kg

R. The change was made

5. Líne 271

50,36 → 49,0?

R. The change was made

6. Líne 329-330 figure 2 (caption)

Which notation is correct?

R. The change was made at the foot of the figure

7. Líne 358-363, table 5

I do not see H, I in table 5.

R. H, I in table 5 is appended

8. Líne 395

0,03 → 0,3?

R. Corrected to 0.3

9. Figure 4

Amate craft paper → i) Amate craft paper.

R. Corrected to i)

10. Líne 476

recycled → barley straw?

R. It refers to recycled paper

11. Líne 444

424 → 4240?

R. It was checked and the data of 424 is correct.

12. Líne 491-493

table 7 shows...

I cannot find the data in table 7.

R. The paragraph was rewritten to read as follows “By means of X-ray diffraction analysis, the spectra of figure 7 were obtained, and shows the crytalline phases of lignite and cellulose present, while in the table 7 shows the data of the coparison of the crystal size, corresponding to characteristics of pulp extracted with the pulping method cellulose and home method cellulose.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Review Report

on

REUSE OF BARLEY STRAW FOR HANDMADE PAPER PRODUCTION

 

The main goal of this paper is to support the use of sustainable solutions for the management and reuse of waste from the food industry, making sheets of artisan paper innovating the process with the use of different proportions of cellulose obtained from spent barley straw, sheets of recycled paper, and the evaluation of their quality through the implementation of different methods

Areas of strength

The manuscript almost fulfills the four important aspects which, in my opinion, are requirements that must be cumulatively and completely met in order to be published

First: it addresses a subject that is relevant and obviously appropriate for the Journal.

Second: one of the appropriate methodologies is used, in a competent manner.

Third: it is well written.

Fourth: there are (almost) no typographical errors.

Areas of  Weakness

The manuscript has some basic flaws that are shown below:

- The literature review is missing.

- In each of the tables and figures the source must be specified and figures’quality must be improved

-The conclusions section is very underdeveloped.This section should be developed further by pointing out the main contributions of the paper and the practical implications that can be derived from it.

 

Author Response

attention to the suggested recommendations is mentioned

 Literature review is lacking.

R. References are homologated

- In each of the tables and figures the source should be specified and the quality of the figures should be improved.

R. The quality of the figures was improved and the source of the tables and figures are of the authors' own authorship, since they are from an unpublished research.

 

-The conclusions section is very poorly developed, this section should be developed more, pointing out the main contributions of the work and the practical implications that can be derived from it.

R. The recommendation was addressed

Reviewer 3 Report

I recommend using ISO units and not eg - a pressure of 9000 kg/cm2 PSI-) MPa

Unreadable data on - Figure 2. Micro-photographs of straw of Oats (A-C), Barley (D-F) and Triticale (G-I). + Figure 4.

Low quality photo in - Table 4. Craft paper sheets made.

Please change - Table 6. ; Figure 3 KPa -) kPa

Please change non-uniform formatting - References

Author Response

I recommend using ISO units and not, for example, a pressure of 9000 kg / cm2 PSI-) MPa.

R. The recommendation was heeded

Unreadable data on - Figure 2. Photomicrographs of oat straw (AC), barley (DF) and triticale (GI). + Figure 4.

R. The recommendation was heeded.

Low quality photo on - Table 4. Handmade paper sheets made.

R. The recommendation was addressed and the photos were removed.

Change - Table 6.; Figure 3 KPa -) kPa

R. The recommendation was addressed.

Change non-uniform format - References

R. References were standardized

 

Reviewer 4 Report

It seems a very intersting paper, but for a technical review, no for Sustainability readers. Also, authors promise in abstract a LCA application, and it is not at all in the paper.

Author Response

attention to the suggested recommendations is mentioned

It looks like a very interesting paper, but for a technical review, not for Sustainability readers. Also, the authors promise in summary an LCA application, and it is not in the paper at all.

R. An LCA is proposed here for all waste generated around beer production. How is the use of straws to increase the sustainability of the crop and the utilization of the straws. Helping with this to reduce the use of wood in the manufacture of paper and at the same time generating income from the use of straw.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think that in revised manuscript, several attempts were made to improve the original one.

Reviewer 2 Report

the manuscript has been significantly improved and now warrants publication in Sustainability

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

Sorry, but it is almost the same paper I had rejected before. And the LCA still only appears in the abstract.