Opportunities and Potential for Energy Utilization from Agricultural and Livestock Residues in the Region of Thessaly

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

More recent references can be added to introduction and discussion parts

Author Response

We have accepted the Reviewer's comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Fig.1: units and their magnitudes are not indicated on the individual axes. The designation X103 is not correct, it is necessary to change the symbol X to x.

Fig. 2, 3 etc.: detto

equation 5: fix the dot product symbol from * to · and the statement of the unit needs to be corrected so that it is not in fraction form

equation 6, 8, 9: detto

equation7: for writing equations, it is necessary to use a suitable tool from the MS Office package or an associated program

Table 5: in the expression the symbol * is used, for multiplication and at the same time for the magnitude of VS, which is confusing. Please change the multiplication symbol and use the asterisk symbol for VS as the index

the authors did not follow the prescribed template: at the end of the article, it is necessary to add which authors engaged in which activities during the creation - conceptualization, investigation, etc... see the original template

The presented article deals with a very current issue, where it is possible to produce electricity from unused residues of specific agricultural crops and biological waste. The authors conducted a study in a specific area of Greece, where it is important to valorize this type of waste. the article has a logical structure, individual chapters are linked. The expression form is at a good level. The authors present the results of their study in the form of bar graphs, while the conclusions and findings are sufficiently supported by the results achieved. The innovativeness of the article consists in showing the real need for such an activity and demonstrating concrete results. The article contains some incorrectly stated data, or quantities and so on: see comments below. I ask that the authors incorporate them to increase the quality and scientific content of the article. Based on the study of the article, my assessment is: acceptance after incorporating modifications.

 

Author Response

We have accepted the Reviewer's comments.

Accepted and changed the dot product symbol from * to · in the whole manuscript for uniformity and understanding reasons.

Reviewer 3 Report

The study presented is undoubtedly very important, they address the use of agricultural and livestock waste as a source of energy, an aspect of great importance today, since we need to take care of the environment. There are several details that authors need to consider.

1. At least follow a format of a scientific article, and include scientific language. As it is presented, it looks like an activity report.

2. The Discussion of results is missing.

3. In the Tables and Figures, it is necessary to indicate the meaning of the initials. Remember that any Table and/or Figure needs to be understood. In this case, even by referring to the text, the meaning of the initials included cannot be deciphered. In the same sense, it is necessary to indicate the units of measurement correctly Eg. tn y-1, X 103.

4. The Conclusions the authors present are not Conclusions, they seem to be part of the section for discussion of results.

Author Response

We have accepted the Reviewer's comments. The "Discussion" section was merged with the "Results" section. We added all the abbreviations at the back matter. "Conclusions" section was rewritten according to the Reviewer's comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Although the manuscript has improved, it still looks like a results report, but not a scientific paper. The expansion in the discussion of results is not supported by bibliographic citations. The Tables need more work, as well as the conclusions, as suggested. Please check the comments made in the first review and work on it.

Author Response

In the “Results and discussion” section we added more bibliographic citations to support the discussion of the results, according to the Reviewer's comments. The Tables changed in some points, while in the "Conclusions" section we added some more information about the above text and possible future work.