Recent Advances in Seaweed Biorefineries and Assessment of Their Potential for Carbon Capture and Storage
, Christopher E. French 1,3 and Abdelrahman S. Zaky 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I am writing to provide feedback on your manuscript titled "Advancements in Seaweed Biorefineries and Assessment of Their Potential for Carbon Capture and Storage."
I attached a PDF with all my suggestions.
Overall, I find the work to be well-executed and believe it will contribute significantly to the field of macroalgae research. I appreciate the valuable insights you have presented, which shed light on the potential of seaweeds for biofuel production, carbon sequestration, and high-value chemical extraction. One notable strength of your review is the comprehensive exploration of various technologies enabling the emergence of a novel coastal marine biorefinery system. Your detailed analysis of the merits of this approach over conventional refineries is commendable, and it offers a sustainable and cost-effective solution for biofuel production and atmospheric carbon capture and storage.
However, I must note that at times, the manuscript appears slightly disorganized, and the flow of the content could be improved to ensure a smooth and coherent reading experience. While it offers many valuable insights, some sections might benefit from better structuring to maintain the overall focus and clarity of the narrative.
Furthermore, as this is a review article, I recommend enriching the quantity and quality of citations to support your statements and strengthen the manuscript's scientific foundation. Additional references will enhance the credibility and authority of your findings, providing readers with a broader context for your research.
Lastly, I would like to extend my congratulations to all the authors for the excellent work, particularly regarding the section on CO2 capture. Your research findings have the potential to drive significant advancements in the field of macroalgae and biorefinery technology.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is an interesting review which introduced the recent advances in seaweed biorefineries. It is a well-structured and well-organized work. The figures are clear and the number of them is in accordance with the need for the work. The authors used recent articles published in the literature to support the discussion of results. The manuscript is recommended for publication after necessary revision.
1. Besides highlight the difference and superiority of seaweed biorefineries process, the authors are encouraged to dig deeper and conclude the disadvantages and challenges of current seaweed biorefineries process.
2. The conclusion section should revise by definite conclusion sentence. Only some important and significant conclusions could be revealed in this section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I have reviewed the manuscript entitled “Recent advances in seaweed biorefineries and assessment of their potential for carbon capture and storage”. The manuscript is well written and covers an interesting review on the role of seaweeds on carbon capture and storage and the further use of algal biomass in several processes. I have some revision and suggestions that need to be addressed before paper is accepted for publication:
1 - Some recent and important topics were not addressed in this review:
a) The utilization of macroalgae for the production of biofertilizers and immunostimulants. The production of these products within the context of oceanic biorefineries holds significant importance for the current literature review.
b) Mycosporine-like amino acids (MAAs) are high-value metabolites produced by several algae with potential applications in the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries.
2 – Abstract, Line 5: The '2' in 'CO2' must be in superscript.
3 – The sections of the manuscript are not numbered (only the sections on pages 11 to 13 appear with non-sequential numbers).
4 – Figure 1 is nice, but the content of the Figure 2 must be improved.
5 – The titles of some sections should be shortened. In addition, authors should consider subdividing the text into more subsections.
A revision of English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments on sustainability-2552959 entitled “Recent advances in seaweed biorefineries and assessment of their potential for carbon capture and storage”
A review presented in this manuscript is devoted to actual problem dealing with an seaweed biorefineries and assessment of their potential for carbon capture and storage. The results are interesting, well-presented using a significant number of references. But I have some questions and remarks dealing with this manuscript.
1) Pages 1-2. The causes of global warming and increasing carbon dioxide concentrations are not fully known. This can be caused not only by human exposure, but also by natural causes (for example, volcanic eruptions). The authors should have considered all possible causes of global warming.
2) Page 5. The authors classify seaweeds into three groups: Red (Rhodophytes), Green (Chlorophytes), and Brown (Phaeophytes). However, authors should correct the text to: the main groups of marine macroalgae include species of the phyla Rhodophyta, Chlorophyta and class Phaeophyceae. See: https://www.algaebase.org
3) Some subsection numbers (e.g. pages 14, 16, 17 etc.) should be added to improve understanding of the text.
4) The calculations given by the authors to estimate the removal of carbon dioxide are very approximate, since many factors have not been taken into account. In particular, the cultivation of monocultures of algae can adversely affect marine ecosystems. Perhaps the authors should make computer simulations of the impact of seaweed biorefineries on ecosystems, taking into account most of the influencing factors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
In this manuscript authors reviewed the recent advances in seaweed biorefineries and assessment of their potential for carbon capture and storage. In my opinion the manuscript is good, and authors presented a good amount of data. I think it is acceptable for publication after some minor revisions.
The authors focused their research on macroalgae, so I think the keyword “microalgae” should be changed.
Page 6: “Seaweeds contain several interesting compounds with a range of bioactivities, from potential anti-cancer to food preserving agents.” Please add the literature that supports this.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors improved the quality of the manuscript and justified additions that could not have been made.
