Multi-Objective Optimization for Ranking Waste Biomass Materials Based on Performance and Emission Parameters in a Pyrolysis Process—An AHP–TOPSIS Approach
, Abdulrahman Mallah 5 and Zeinebou Yahya 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please, see the comments in the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have applied multi-criteria decision-making technique model based on the weight calculated from the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) tool which has been applied to obtain a ranking of different types of agro-waste-derived biomass feedstock. Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is used to examine the possibilities of using /utilizing locally available biomass. The suggested approaches are supported by the experimental findings and exhibit a good correlation with one another. The manuscript has merits, but the following comments should be answered carefully incorporated in the revised version of paper:
1. The abstract is too long. Please rephrase the abstract in a concise form.
2. Also add major finding of the work in the abstract section.
3. In the introduction section, authors should discuss the limitations of the conducted research study.
4. Enhance the discussion section with relevant examples
5. Please proofread the whole manuscript thoroughly checking for grammar mistakes such as page 6, "… By taking into account subjective weighting method…".
6. Add the advantages of the proposed work with a separate section 2.
7. Future research work should be added in conclusion
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. acronyms must first be defined before continuous use e.g MCDM
2. Equations should be referenced
3. there are several statements in the methodology that requires referencing
4. the conclusions should be itemized
5. paintings should be removed from tables and figures
6. results and discussion lacked reference literature to justify the inferences obtained. this is the major weakness to this research. i suggest extensive reference literature integration in the discussion to justify the work.
7. there several agro waste, what informed the choice of agro waste chosen in this research and what criteria can we use to project the result to others not chosen
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The Authors have better commented on some previous unclear evaluations. In my opinion, the manuscript can be accepted.
Best regards
Reviewer 2 Report
Can be Accepted
Reviewer 3 Report
i have no further comments and I am satisfied with the revision done
