Quality Assessment of Biogas-Producing Macroalgae from Azov Sea and Šventoji River

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Manuscript sustainability-2626493 entitled “Quality Assessment of biogas-producing Macroalgae From Azov Sea and Šventoji River”. Please notice the following:

General view: The manuscript highlighted a great research point of view to extract biogas from macroalgae of the sea and freshwater bodies. A few modifications have to be carried out such as the reformulation of the introduction section and the strict reviewing of the results section to achieve the publication value. 

Language: The manuscript was expressed in good language and grammar.

Title: Clear, concise, and informative.

Abstract: Clear, informative, and indicative.

Keywords: Informative and properly arranged.

Introduction: Improperly arranged into nine paragraphs. The introduction into three paragraphs only i.e., 1. Introduction 2. Significance of the study, and 3. A few modifications have to be carried out to enhance the readability.

The aim: Clear, concise, and indicative.

Materials and Methods: Comprehensible, brief, clear, and informative.

Results: Reduce the use of numbers in the text and keep instead your expression and analysis for the obtained results. Numbers are already displayed in tables and figures and no need to repeat the illustration of these numbers.

Discussion: Clear to a greater extent, informative, and contributes to knowledge with good speculations and comparisons.

Conclusion: Clear and informative.

Authors’ contributions: Clear and informative.

Funding: Clear and informative.

Acknowledgment: NA.

References: Excellent as 64.3% (27 out of 42) were published in the past five years.

Tables: Well organized and presented.

Figures: Well organized and presented.

Author Response

Thank you for your relevant comments, we are sending comments.

Ø  Introduction: Improperly arranged into nine paragraphs. The introduction into three paragraphs only i.e., 1. Introduction 2. Significance of the study, and 3. A few modifications have to be carried out to enhance the readability.

1. Taking into account the remark, the introduction was reformatted into 3 paragraphs. Paragraph 4 was about the purpose of the work.

Ø  Reduce the use of numbers in the text and keep instead your expression and analysis for the obtained results. Numbers are already displayed in tables and figures and no need to repeat the illustration of these numbers.

2. Taking into account the remark, some numerical values have been abandoned.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Manuskrypt został poprawiony zgodnie z uwagami Recenzenta.

Formularz jest przejrzysty. Wyniki i dyskusja są teraz zrozumiałe.

Polecam artykuł do publikacji

----------

The manuscript has been corrected in accordance with the Reviewer's comments.


The form is clear. The results and the discussion are now understandable.


I recommend the article for publication

Author Response

Thank you for your positive comments.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

This paper under the title of “Quantitative and qualitative research of biogas using cultures of macroalgae growing in the Sea of Azov and freshwater water bodies”. There are some comments which should be addressed.

Comments:

Ø  Novelty should be mentioned in the abstract.

Ø   Section 1 Introduction: Define the gap found in the literature and express your study’s aim.

Ø  Errors and uncertainties can occur in the experiments. The authors should also provide the error analysis for this experimental study.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for your relevant comments, we are sending comments. The corrections are shown in blue in the text.

Ø  Novelty should be mentioned in the abstract.

1. Taking into account the remark, the novelty of the work was mentioned in the abstract. Please check the lines 14-15 in revised version.

Ø  Section 1 Introduction: Define the gap found in the literature and express your study’s aim.

2. Taking into account the remark, the introduction has been supplemented. Please check the lines 89-92 in revised version.

Ø  Errors and uncertainties can occur in the experiments. The authors should also provide the error analysis for this experimental study.

3. Taking into account the remark, the error analysis was provided in the methodology, Please check the lines 223-229 in revised version.

Ø  Minor editing of English language required.

4. Taking into account the remark, the English language was revised by an English-speaking editor.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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

This study investigated the “Quantitative and qualitative research of biogas using cultures  of macroalgae growing in the Sea of Azov and freshwater water bodies”. The current format needs a major revision and cannot be published at this stage;

Comments:

Ø  Abstract needs to be rewritten. Novelty should be mentioned in the abstract.

Ø  Section 1 Introduction: Refer to the following structure: Give brief basic information about the subject. Do not repeat the same information. Then write a review of the previous studies (it is important to cite recent studies). Define the gap found in the literature and express your study’s aim.

Ø  Section 2 Materials and Methods: The authors should mention the method and equipment to find the elemental composition of the biomass used in Table 2.

Ø  The authors should also provide the physicochemical properties of the biogas produced in this research because the authors claimed as an alternative to fossil fuel in the manuscript.  

Ø  Errors and uncertainties can occur in the experiments. The authors should also provide the error analysis for this experimental study.

Reviewer 2 Report

I revised the manuscript “Quantitative and qualitative research of biogas using cultures of macroalgae growing in the Sea of Azov and freshwater water bodies” submitted to the Sustainability.  

The authors presented the topic on use of macroalge to biogas production. 

The topic of the article is up to date, the introduction is easy detailed. This problem is relevant for journal scope. 

The concept and aim are clearly defined.  

In the Introduction an important argument should be introduced to support the desirability of conducting research on biogas production eg. from waste materials.

To raise the level of paper, please use the articles on the efficiency of fermentation in wastewater treatment plants:

doi: 10.3390/en13226056

doi: 10.3390/fuels2020009

The presentation and discussion of the presented topicis clear and very detailed however I suggest the authors increase this discussion in the manuscript, as it is a strong aspect of the work. The biomethane production potential should be compared with other published works. 

Results from other papers can be presented here, e.g.:

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105413

- https://doi.org/10.3390/app12073599 (I'm sorry, this autor from Russia and You don't quote it. I showed only that the topic is topical)

Also, an economic discussion should be done concerning the enhancement of biogas production in this technology.

The paper is well written and contributes to the new alternatives to recovery energy from waste  eg. alg.

Other weaknesses to be corrected:

1. Keywords should be in alphabetical order.

2. No explanation of some abbreviations, e.g. VS, SM

3. Line 120 - There is some misunderstanding here - organic load (VS), after all VS means volatile solids and it is written on line 162, correct it

The manuscript follows the formal regulations of MDPI journals.

 

I suggest the acceptance after minor revision.

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript sustainability-2136598 entitled “Quantitative and qualitative research of biogas using cultures of macroalgae growing in the Sea of Azov and freshwater water bodies”. Please notice the following:

General view: The manuscript illustrated a great idea to extract biogas from macroalgae of the sea and freshwater bodies. They expressed their idea in moderate language and grammar. The manuscript might require copyediting and proofreading up to a little degree to provide more simplified sentences. 

Title: Too long and preferred to be modified into “Quality Assessment of biogas-producing Macroalgae From Azov Sea and Šventoji River”.

Abstract: Clear, informative, and indicative. A few modifications have to be carried out to enhance the readability.

Introduction: Too many paragraphs were displayed. It would be better to rearrange the introduction into three paragraphs only i.e., 1. Introduction 2. Significance of the study, and 3. A few modifications have to be carried out to enhance the readability.

The aim: Clear, concise, and indicative.

Materials and Methods: Clear to a greater extent but a higher degree of simplification is requested to increase the readability, as well as the authors have to provide the ethical approval number for the current protocol.

Results: Novel, clear, and informative. Please avoid the illustration of the values in the text and instead use the language expression.

Discussion: Clear to a greater extent, informative, and contribute to knowledge with a moderate level of speculation and a good level of comparison. A few modifications have to be carried out to enhance the readability.

Conclusion: Clear and informative.

Authors’ contributions: Clear and informative.

Funding: Clear and informative.

Acknowledgment: NA.

References: Excellent as only 53.6% (22 out of 41) were published in the past five years.

Tables: Well organized and presented.

Figures: Well organized and presented.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf