Assessing Ammonia and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Livestock Manure Storage: Comparison of Measurements with Dynamic and Static Chambers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, a comparison of ammonia and GHG emission measurements was carried out using two different technologies, both applying direct methods: dynamic hoods and static chambers. There are some comments on this manuscript.

1-      Despite the authors described the two methods used, it is better to show these two applied methods in photos or figures

2-      It is required to do a comparison of direct and indirect methods of measuring the emissions of ammonia and GHG and present this comparison in Figures

3-      It is required to mention the meaning of the symbol P in calculating S2 in line 157.

4-      Check the number of Table 1 in line 350, it seems as if Table 4

5-      Check the number of Table 2 in line 354, it seems as if Table 5

 

6-      Check this sentence (Contrary, ER_CO2 of the solid fraction of pig slurry, was similar for all three hoods) in line 363, with the results of the last Table.

Author Response

Find replies to reviewer in the atached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the introduction section, please introduce the motivation for your research, such as what academic or industry phenomena or gaps led you to undertake this study. 

2. A literature review is an essential part of any academic research. 

3. Please provide further explanation on the selection, collection, and utilization of your samples. 

4. A complete article should include discussions on the research's significance, academic or practical contributions, research limitations, and future recommendations. 

5. In this study, there is little connection between data analysis and the conclusions and recommendations drawn from the analysis. In other words, explain how the conclusions and recommendations are derived from the analyzed data. 

6. Lastly, there are too few references in this study, and the articles are outdated. I suggest the authors should strive to reference literature published after 2018 as much as possible.

These suggestions are intended to assist the author.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I believe the authors have the ability to revise the English expression in this article to make it more academically oriented.

Author Response

Find replies to reviewer in the atached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Pls see attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Pls see attached file.

Author Response

Find replies to reviewer in the atached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Thank you very much for the author's patient revisions. However, as with the initial suggestion, the article still lacks practical implications, theoretical implications, research significance, research limitations, and research recommendations. These are all important elements to ensure the completeness and academic value of a research article.

2. The English writing hasn't shown any significant improvement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English writing hasn't shown any significant improvement.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

1.- Conclusions has been modified to highlight the relevance of this research in the current environment context, where GHG and NH3 emissions should be urgently tackle.

2.- English has been proofread by a native reviewer.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept

Author Response

Dear Rviewer, 

Thank you for accepting the paper in the present form.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I suggest that implications can be described in a separate chapter

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Much improved than the previous version

Author Response

As the reviewer suggested a new section “Implications of the study and future recommendations” has been included in the paper.