Mathematical Modeling for Evaluating the Sustainability of Biogas Generation through Anaerobic Digestion of Livestock Waste

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have made comments directly on the manuscript

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We highlighted our correction in blue

Please find the revised version

Thanks 

Reviewer 2 Report

the article is well written and has a novelty with respect to the developed model. The article has some problems which should be addressed prior it will be published:

(1) Table 2 should be represented as a graph and moved itself into the supplemental material. Try to show the data in the way that we could see the novelty of the data or at least some trends.

(2) Table 3 is a duplicate of the drawing. Rather move that table into the supplemental material.

(3) Table 4 seems to be also useless. Please, try to show the data as a drawing so that reader could see the novelty.

(4) The discussion selection is not well written. You should not have any drawing of the reactor into this chapter. Rather try to move it into the supplemental material. In the discussion selection, explain the limitations of your model and what can be done with model to simplify it even more. The equation is still too long and I am sure that there could be some parameters which you did not consider in this work properly and in the future work it can be reduced maybe to less than 10 parameter equation.

(5) Conclusion is the repetition of the same idea. You do not develop your novelty or statement on one result in something else. Start with The novelty of this work relies on ... Then, mention short the most successful result, then, maybe even the second result, and later limitation, and impact on the society. The length of your conclusion is already good, but just from its structure it is not good.

Author Response

(1) Table 2 should be represented as a graph and moved itself into the supplemental material. Try to show the data in the way that we could see the novelty of the data or at least some trends. - Moved to Supplementary file

(2) Table 3 is a duplicate of the drawing. Rather move that table into the supplemental material. - Moved to Supplementary file

(3) Table 4 seems to be also useless. Please, try to show the data as a drawing so that reader could see the novelty.

(4) The discussion selection is not well written. You should not have any drawing of the reactor into this chapter. Rather try to move it into the supplemental material. In the discussion selection, explain the limitations of your model and what can be done with model to simplify it even more. The equation is still too long and I am sure that there could be some parameters which you did not consider in this work properly and in the future work it can be reduced maybe to less than 10 parameter equation. - Equation is 9 parameter. Added new explanations Texts are in blue color

(5) Conclusion is the repetition of the same idea. You do not develop your novelty or statement on one result in something else. Start with The novelty of this work relies on ... Then, mention short the most successful result, then, maybe even the second result, and later limitation, and impact on the society. The length of your conclusion is already good, but just from its structure it is not good. - Revised

Reviewer 3 Report

The proposed work is very accurate and is well structured. the analysis carried out is extremely thorough and takes into account a large number of parameters that can influence the formation of biogas. There are some fixes to make:

 

Major:

The result? It would be useful to obtain a comparison between the result of the proposed model and the real data obtained by the plant. why is there no such comparison?

 

Minor:

Abstract is simplistic and redundant

 

Line 33 correct "valuable"

 

Lines 40-43 are redundant

 

Lines 80-81 this sentence is to be moved in the introduction

 

Table 1 is reformatted. I suggest to invert rows with columns to make a single table

 

In equation 13 I don’t understand what ⱷ

 

Lines 305-307. What are the parameters that most affect the reaction? explain them.

 

In the caption of figure 1 it would be explained what the blue trend represents and what the black

 

Table 4 should also include instrument brands

 

Siloxanes are never mentioned as an important parameter to be monitored in biogas

 

Author Response

Major:

The result? It would be useful to obtain a comparison between the result of the proposed model and the real data obtained by the plant. why is there no such comparison? - added new texts in blue color

 

Minor:

Abstract is simplistic and redundant - revised

 

Line 33 correct "valuable" - corrected

 

Lines 40-43 are redundant - corrected

 

Lines 80-81 this sentence is to be moved in the introduction - corrected

 

Table 1 is reformatted. I suggest to invert rows with columns to make a single table - corrected

 

In equation 13 I don’t understand what ⱷ - humidity

 

Lines 305-307. What are the parameters that most affect the reaction? explain them. - corrected

 

In the caption of figure 1 it would be explained what the blue trend represents and what the black - black line is  the approximation line

 

Table 4 should also include instrument brands - not necessary its for any equipment

Siloxanes are never mentioned as an important parameter to be monitored in biogas

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All recommendations were integrated and the work can be accepted.