Pretreatment and Nanoparticles as Catalysts for Biogas Production Reactions in Pepper Waste and Pig Manure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title selected for the document seems to be a review document, and has nothing to do with the document, which is an original and seeks to produce biogas from selected wastes. Rewrite the title of the document that is linked to the one presenting the document.

The abstract is poorly structured with disconnected sentences and a lack of information, methodology and main results. Follow the authors' guide to structure the abstract: 1) Background; 2) Methods; 3) Results and 4) Conclusion.

Line 33: They mention the amount of pepper exported, but they do not mention the amount produced to have the real value of production and when they process.

Conclusion: “Effect of OLR on alkalinity, VS, ammonia nitrogen and VFA have been evaluated.” "Finally, the digestates from the pilot plant of the experiment evaluated in two OLR values have been evaluated and classified according to a Spanish Standard." These are not conclusions. The conclusions section should include the main achievements and challenges that still remain to be done, and not what was done.

It seems that the person who wrote the introduction and conclusions was not the same person who did the rest.

It is missing from the document:Author Contributions, Funding, Data Availability Statement and Conflicts of Interest

Author Response

Manuscript has been improved. Tittle and abstract have been changed to get an information closer to the research. Also conclusion has been amended, and author contributions, fundings... have been added.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is not written well and its hard to understand the content. I tried to review it, but I feel it will be waste of time. Author should take help of some language expert to present the content of article properly. Here are few example of badly framed sentences in just first two pages.

Change the title and make it more specific to represent the content of your article.

Rewrite the abstract section and include all the importance of study, key results in numerical form, and novelty of this work.

Line 48: In this process can be employed more than one wast…rewrite it.

Line 57: An research about AC-D of wood waste with pig manure…rewrite it.

Line 68: Kweinor and Rathilal [13] employed as catalyst magnetized…rewrite it.

Line 74: Parameter essential to control pH buffer is the alkalinity…rewrite it.

Line 87: Raw materials employed were Pepper Waste Pretreatment…rewrite it.

Its hard to understand the content. Author should take help of language expert.

Author Response

Tittle and abstract have been changed to get an information closer to the research. Language used to explain the work carried out has been improved as well.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript entitled "Biorenewables from horticulture waste within the biorefinery concept" studied The anaerobic digestion of pig manure and pepper waste were evaluated in this research to produce biogas/methane. After reading the manuscript, there are several comments that need to be addressed. The writing style, sentence structure and English grammar of some parts of the manuscript are needed much improvement. The detailed comments are as follows.

1. You should expand the abstract. The use of English grammar is unacceptable in the abstract. Usually we use the past tense. The authors must check the sentence structure, tenses, and language carefully in the revised manuscript. The concept of bio-refinery is not included in the abstract.

2. Usually we put section of materials and methods before section of results and discussion.

3. The title does not accurately reflect the content. The author studies codigestion of pig manure and pepper waste, so the raw material are pig manure and pepper waste. horticulture waste is not appropriate and accurate. The concept of bio-refining is also missing from the paper.

4. It is considered necessary to improve the resolution of the figures used in the manuscript. We can’t read it clearly most time, such as figure 2, figure 3.

5. You should rearrange the format of the tables to meet the requirements of journal, such  as table 2, table 3, table 6

6. Use the correct format for each of the references. Review the Microsoft word template of the authors guide.

 

 

Author Response

English grammar of manuscript has been revised and improved. Tittle and abstract have been changed to get an information closer to the research. Some tables and figures have been amended, as it has been suggested. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

These last modifications greatly improved the document and I think it will be of interest to the scientific community of the area.

Reviewer 3 Report

All concernrs were addressed by authors. The paper can be accepted.