Techno-Economic Assessment of APS-Based Poultry Feed Production with a Circular Biorefinery Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work focussed on the Techno-Economic Analysis (TEA) of a poultry feed production model and designed to verify the industrial feasibility of alternative protein sources(APS) based poultry feed production, that coupled with insect rearing and microalgae cultivation. The work valorised the pre-treated organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) as substrates for Hermetia illucens larval growth. However, the paper needs to be revised for more clarity in terms of objectives, scope, methodology, specific outcomes and conclusions of the study. The enclosed comments need to be addressed in the revision.

·         In introduction, general lines in para 2-5 can be removed or written briefly.

·         Highlighting the scope can be written in the concluding lines on the introduction.

·         For the part of the study, which poultry farm was taken as a reference?

·         What conclusion does this study deliver?

·         What is the importance of closing loops? Discuss

·         Figure captions can be given on the bottom of figures and table captions can be given on the top by avoiding splits in the table

·         Material methods especially 2.1 should include how the experiment was conducted and what parameters were taken, it seems that the authors have given only definitions.

·         Why did the running text keep bold in all sections?

·         Flow patterns in Figure 1 are not clear, it needs more clarity. Also check ‘Smart Feed’.

·         Effective representation of section headings is suggested

·         Section 2.1.1, needs a thorough revision, there is no continuity and projecting the literature data is not advised

·         In abstract, lines saying the availability of literature on present study is not recommended. Instead, it can focus on the scope and outcomes of the study

·         Brief details of excel based model used in the present study is suggested to include

·         Section 2.2, first para can be minimized or removed. Overall, there is no detailed methodology on the present study was represented in the entire section 2.

·         There is no data provided in section 2.

·         The title focuses on the APS-based poultry feed production with a circular biorefinery process, but the work in the study is not exactly representing its scope.  

·         The CHP full-form should be mentioned in section 2.1

·         How can dried biomass be minced? Use proper terms

·          What is meant by Hermetia illucens flour? It seems that the authors will make flour out of the insect. Check this kind of statements

·         Abstract can include that the grown larva from microalgal feed could be used as a Smartfood for the poultry industry.

·         To close the loop, the treated wastewater can be used again in the poultry farm, kindly check and add it to the schematic diagram 1

 

·         Chlorella should be italics everywhere, check line 119.

Author Response

please, see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study seems well planned. However few queries are to be addressed:

1. What is the fate of water generated from aerobic process? Why it could not be used in anaerobic digestion or in to the microalgal growth tank with clarified liquid digestate?

2. As per line nos.452-456, insects could not be fed with manure, catering waste, etc..... If so, then how OFMSW could be given as feed for insect farming? If you have obtained specific clearance for research, that should be highlighted in Institutional review board statement or informed consent statement.

3. In some places, the citation of tables is not appropriate. Please check the manuscript for such mistakes. Check line no. 312.

4. Do not leave empty spaces in tables. If data is not available please give a dash or na.

5. While writing Chlorella spp., I think spp., should not be italized.

 

 

Author Response

please, see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I read the contribution of Buccaro and colleagues with interest. The manuscript with title “Techno-Economic Assessment of APS-based poultry feed production with a circular biorefinery process” deals with evaluation of mass /energy balances and the income statement. Although some interesting results are described in evaluation of the technical-economic feasibility, the manuscript has some novelty and the work seems to be completed but needs some improvements.

Comments

1.     English Language should be polished and improve the grammar throughout the whole manuscript.

2.     The keyword should be revised and rewritten

3.     There is a repetition of ref [4] at L36

4.     The authors should discuss in details the model of the Smart Feed, which mentioned in line 69 and supporting their discussion by references

5.     L 119 the “Chlorella spp.” should be italic form and the authors should revise the whole manuscript

6.     L123 and 126 what the authors mean by ODM and DM. These abbreviations not mentioned before and should added.

7.     L155-157 the authors mentioned the optimizing condition. Is there is any previous studies for the addition of the ratio (10/90) and other constituents.

8.      L 224 to 237, the data should be supported by references

9.     For facilizing on the broad audience, I suggest to establish a table for abbreviation at the end of the manuscript

10.  It is known that there is a space between numbers and the unite used, so please check in the whole manuscript, as in lines 128, 137, 149, 257, ..etc

11.  The authors should revise the citation of the Tables in the main text (for Table 1, Table 2), check the resolution of Table 3 for the first column (there are interfering with the line numbers). Table 4 was cited as Table 5 in the text (see L 312), and the citation of Table 5 should be revised.

Author Response

please, see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors present advanced APS-based poultry feed production technology with a circular biorefinery process. Studies have performed a Techno-Economic analysis (TEA) of a poultry feed production model maximizing material flows with a zero-waste circular biorefinery perspective. The objective is very interesting, but I believe there are many deficiencies in the presented material. 

1) Figure 1 should have values of materials and energy added on all paths. Not only in the description but firstly in the scheme.

2) Authors should use more references to estimate values and costs. For example calculations for algae are beside one reference. This position is seven years old. In my opinion costs of algae cultivation, are a little higher than seven years ago.

3) Lack of information about chamber volume for example in algae cultivation.  1000 m2 liquid fraction is not enough for treatment 37,315 t/y. It is about 100 t/d, lacks information about nitrogen or phosphorus concentration or dry mass in liquid fraction (about centrifugation it can be about 2-3 % or more dry mass). Authors should use more references to check and compare values that are used in estimation.

Author Response

please, see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the authors for their efforts in improving the work

I recommend to accept it in present form

Reviewer 4 Report

Manuscript can be published in present form