Biochemical Degradation of Chitosan over Immobilized Cellulase and Supported Fenton Catalysts
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review Report
The manuscript entitled 'Biochemical degradation of chitosan over immobilized cellulase and supported Fenton catalysts' describes the degradation of chitosan by Fe(III) and enzymes containing MCM-48-based catalysts. The authors have also investigated the effect of degradation of chitosan by Fe-MCM-48 and cellulase-MCM-48 applied together.
As a reviewer I do not see any novelty in the manuscript. The degradation of chitosan has been known for long time by H2O2 and MCM-48. Moreover the authors were unable to present a clear advantage for using the catalysts Fe(III)-MCM-48 and Enzyme-MCM-48. I think the manuscript in its current form is not ready for publication in a journal like Catalysts. The manuscript should be re-reviewed after major revisions before it is considered for acceptance.
1) In the experimental section:
section 2.2. Materials: Line 84-88 has been exactly copied in Section 2.2.1. Cellulase-MCM-48 (line 92-96). Authors should correct this.
2) Figure -2 was labeled as figure-1 (there are two figure-1’s in the manuscript). Authors should correct this. Moreover, the Authors should be consistent in the legend of the figures (i.e. figure-x or Fig-x).
3) If the Authors use a particular color for each catalyst and maintain them in each figure then it might be easier for readership.
4) As a part of the characterization, the authors should perform powder X-ray diffraction for the catalysts.
5) The authors should investigate how the relative activity of the catalysts changes by the variation of temperature, time, and pH.
6) References:
References of the manuscript were incorporated in very careless manner, and they should be corrected. For example:
i) Reference 5: Formatting in the author's name are incorrect.
ii) Reference 7: No Page number.
iii) Reference 12: No page number.
iv) Reference 13: Year is missing and page numbers in italics.
v) Reference 14: Year is missing.
vi) Reference 15: Year is missing.
vii) Reference 17: Year is missing.
viii) Reference 18: Year is missing.
ix) Reference 19: Details information about the journal, volume and page number is missing
(International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2018, 53, 156–165,
Received 21 April 2017; Accepted in revised form 26 July 2017)
x) Reference 21: No page number.
xi) Reference 22: Year is missing.
xii) Reference 23: No page number.
xiii) Reference 26: Year is missing.
xiv) Reference 27: Year is missing.
Author Response
1) In the experimental section:
section 2.2. Materials: Line 84-88 has been exactly copied in Section 2.2.1. Cellulase-MCM-48 (line 92-96). Authors should correct this.
Response: Thanks for your kindly advice. We have carefully modified this section in the revised manuscript.
2) Figure -2 was labeled as figure-1 (there are two figure-1’s in the manuscript). Authors should correct this. Moreover, the Authors should be consistent in the legend of the figures (i.e. figure-x or Fig-x).
Response: Thanks for your kindly and constructive advice. We have corrected the Figure 2 and named the figures uniformly.
3) If the Authors use a particular color for each catalyst and maintain them in each figure then it might be easier for readership.
Response: Thanks for your constructive advice. We have modified the color for each catalyst and maintain them in each figure to make it easier for readership.
4) As a part of the characterization, the authors should perform powder X-ray diffraction for the catalysts.
Response: Thanks for your constructive advice. We have performed the power X-ray diffraction for the catalysts.
5) The authors should investigate how the relative activity of the catalysts changes by the variation of temperature, time, and pH.
Response: Thanks for your constructive advice. The optimum temperature for cellulase reaction was 50℃ and the optimum pH was 4.5 (this information has been added in 2.1 section in the revised manuscript), so this reaction conditions was selected in the enzymatic hydrolysis experiment and no additional study was conducted. Since the raw material chitosan continued to dissolve under acidic conditions, and the addition of hydrogen peroxide would strengthen the acidity and make it difficult to control the pH, so we haven't experimented with pH as a variable. Studies on the catalytic activity of Fe-MCM-48 at different temperatures have been performed.
6) References:
References of the manuscript were incorporated in very careless manner, and they should be corrected. For example:
- i) Reference 5: Formatting in the author's name are incorrect.
- ii) Reference 7: No Page number.
iii) Reference 12: No page number.
- iv) Reference 13: Year is missing and page numbers in italics.
- v) Reference 14: Year is missing.
- vi) Reference 15: Year is missing.
vii) Reference 17: Year is missing.
viii) Reference 18: Year is missing.
- ix) Reference 19: Details information about the journal, volume and page number is missing
(International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2018, 53, 156–165,
Received 21 April 2017; Accepted in revised form 26 July 2017)
- x) Reference 21: No page number.
- xi) Reference 22: Year is missing.
xii) Reference 23: No page number.
xiii) Reference 26: Year is missing.
xiv) Reference 27: Year is missing.
Response: Thanks for your patience and kindly advice. We have carefully modified these errors in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, the authors describes the "Biochemical degradation of chitosan over immobilized cellulase and supported fenton catalysts". While this is informative, it is fraught with lots of grammatical errors creating lots ambiguity in sections of the manuscript. If this manuscript is to benefit its targeted audience, the authors should address the following concerns:
1) In line 130, the authors should revise the sentence.
2) In lines 142-145, it appears the entire statement does not belong to the manuscript.
3) In line 154-156, the entire sentence is not clear. The authors should consider revising.
4) In line 159, the sentence is not clear. The authors should revise it.
5) in line 164 - 166, there are two figure 1's. This will certainly confuse readers.
6) In line 171 the word is ...absorptions not adoptions.
7) In line 187, the word is depicted not depiced.
8) In line 221-222, the sentence is not clear and so does the sentence in line 253 and 254.
9) In line 242, the word is obtain not obtaine.
These are among many issues in the manuscript that will potentially create lots of linguistic ambiguity for readers.
In summary, the manuscript will need much work to be suitable and beneficial to its targeted audience.
Author Response
1) In line 130, the authors should revise the sentence.
Response: Thanks for your constructive advice. We have revised this sentence in the revised manuscript.
2) In lines 142-145, it appears the entire statement does not belong to the manuscript.
Response: Thanks for your kindly advice. We have deleted this section in the revised manuscript.
3) In line 154-156, the entire sentence is not clear. The authors should consider revising.
Response: Thanks for your constructive advice. We have modified this sentence in the revised manuscript.
4) In line 159, the sentence is not clear. The authors should revise it.
Response: Thanks for your constructive advice. We have revised this sentence to make it more understandable.
5) in line 164 - 166, there are two figure 1's. This will certainly confuse readers.
Response: Thanks for your kindly advice. We have corrected this mistake in the revised manuscript.
6) In line 171 the word is ...absorptions not adoptions.
Response: Thanks for your kindly advice. We have corrected this word in the revised manuscript.
7) In line 187, the word is depicted not depiced.
Response: Thanks for your kindly advice. We have corrected this word in the revised manuscript.
8) In line 221-222, the sentence is not clear and so does the sentence in line 253 and 254.
Response: Thanks for your constructive advice. We have revised this two sentences in the revised manuscript.
9) In line 242, the word is obtain not obtaine.
Response: Thanks for your kindly advice. We have corrected this word in the revised manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have checked the revised version and found that the authors have made the revisions for the most part and now the manuscript can be accepted. The authors should correct the reference 5, where an extra period and comma are present in authors names(Kondo, Y., .; Nakatani, A., .; Hayashi, K., .; Ito, M., . Low).
Author Response
I have checked the revised version and found that the authors have made the revisions for the most part and now the manuscript can be accepted. The authors should correct the reference 5, where an extra period and comma are present in authors names(Kondo, Y., .; Nakatani, A., .; Hayashi, K., .; Ito, M., . Low).
Response: Thanks for your patience and kindly advice. We have carefully modified these errors in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors adequately addressed the concerns raised in the revised manuscript.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments on our manuscript
