Sustainable Valorization of Tequila Industry Vinasse: A Patent Review on Bioeconomy-Driven Technologies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates the sustainable utilization of vinasse from the tequila industry and explores the feasibility of employing bioeconomy-driven technologies to convert it into valuable products through patent analysis. The research aims to guide researchers, industry stakeholders, and policymakers in developing strategies to enhance environmental sustainability and economic efficiency, offering valuable insights. However, the manuscript requires further revisions to meet Agronomy's publication standards.

1. Figure 8 lists 25 articles by Brazilian author M. Zaiat. Are all these studies specifically related to tequila vinasse, or do they include research on other types of waste? To avoid ambiguity, the figure’s title or caption should explicitly state the screening criteria (e.g., "limited to studies on tequila vinasse").
2. Figure 3 categorizes technological development into three phases: "before 2015," "2015–2020," and "after 2020." However, Section 3.2.1 does not explain the rationale behind this division (e.g., patent growth rates, key technological breakthroughs). The authors should provide quantitative justification (e.g., "based on annual patent application trends") to strengthen the analysis.
3. The discussion states that "the number of patents peaked between 2016 and 2020," but this claim is not directly supported by Figure 2. To improve coherence, the authors should explicitly reference the figure (e.g., "As shown in Figure 2, patent filings increased by 40% during this period").
4. The methodology section should elaborate on the patent search strategy, including keyword combinations, screening criteria, and databases used. Additionally, the process for selecting scientific articles (e.g., inclusion/exclusion criteria) should be clarified to enhance reproducibility.
5. The discussion would benefit from a more thorough analysis of the real-world applicability and potential obstacles of converting tequila waste into valuable products. For instance, what are the scalability challenges or economic barriers? Including case studies demonstrating successful implementations would strengthen the argument.
6. The conclusion is overly verbose and should be condensed to succinctly summarize key findings, contributions, and implications for policy and practice. Additionally, future research directions (e.g., "further studies on cost-benefit analysis are needed") would provide valuable guidance.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Sustainable valorization of tequila industry vinasse: a patent review on bioeconomy-driven technologies Agronomy-3696570 is a thorough review of vinasse recovery and useful for those working in the bioeconomy and circular economy in general. It describes the market interest and applications for by-product recovery. The information on aspects to be developed is useful for those involved in this type of research who want to develop a patent. Because I detected plagiarism along the text, I think the review need revisions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The manuscript “Sustainable valorization of tequila industry vinasse: a patent review on bioeconomy-driven technologies” presents a well-researched and relevant review. The work is well-structured, and addresses a key sustainability issue. However, several aspects should be clarified or improved to enhance the clarity, rigor, and utility of the review.

• In the abstract, add a brief sentence that explains how many patents and articles were reviewed and which main types of valorization (e.g., bioethanol, animal feed, biofertilizer) were identified.
• In Materials and Methods, clearly state the exact search strings used in both Scopus and Espacenet, including keywords, Boolean operators, and filters (language, country, etc.). This is essential for reproducibility. Please be clear in how duplicates or overlapping patents/articles were handled, especially between overlapping categories.
• Ensure all figures (e.g., Figures 9 and 10) are provided in high resolution in the final version and are self-explanatory (including consistent legends).

• The review did not assess economic feasibility. Add a more critical comparison between the success of these technologies at lab scale vs. industrial deployment. For example, have any of the patented methods been implemented commercially? If not, why?

• Strengthen the conclusion by proposing specific areas for future research

The authors should revise the methods for reproducibility,  critically reflect on limitations, and specify actionable recommendations in the conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the article "Sustainable valorization of tequila industry vinasse: a patent review on bioeconomy-driven technologies" is interesting. My suggestion for its improvement is by adding a better discussion about the impacts of vinaze on the environment.

Also, you can mention some improvements achieved in vinasse valorization (see below suggested references):

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2025.102175

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11635

Add a brief comments in the discussion about some improvements achieved through vinasse valorization.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Sustainable valorization of tequila industry vinasse: a patent review on bioeconomy-driven technologies

Authors: Mauricio Suárez-Sánchez 1, , Humberto Merritt-Tapia 2, Guadalupe Oyoque-Salcedo 1, Diana Priscila Estrella-Santiago 2, Ernesto Oregel-Zamudio 1,* and Sergio Arias-Martínez

Reviewreport

The paper addresses a relevant and current topic such as the valorization of tequila vinasse that is of interest to industrial, environmental and academic sectors in the context of the circular bioeconomy. The inclusion of scientific articles and patents provides a comprehensive view of the state of the art. The article adequately highlights how vinasse can be integrated into sustainable and circular economy processes. However, the scientific contribution is limited when considering the degree of methodological or conceptual novelty.

1. For example, there is a lack of methodological rigor in the review, it does not follow a validated and solid methodology, quality criteria, bias assessment, or data analysis tools beyond Excel are not indicated. The search strategy in Scopus is too ambiguous: the terms "vinass*", "by product" and "treatment" are generic. A table with the exact terms, Boolean operators and search equations is missing.
2. In the patent review, although the authors mention a method based on Nascimento et al. (2024), there is insufficient transparency about the filters applied and the reproducibility of the search.
3. Quantitative analysis is very weak, there are no reviews of key metrics of co-occurrence analysis, citation networks, or technological relationships (e.g., cluster analysis, strategy maps). The figures presented are descriptive but not analytical (no correlation patterns or technological implications are interpreted). Regarding the number of patents and articles, the level of technological or commercial maturity of the inventions is not evaluated.
4. The discussion is very weak, no contradictions, gaps or relevant controversies are identified in the literature reviewed. Sometimes it is very extensive and repetitive; it lacks analytical depth and direct connections between science and industrial application. Important technological limitations such as scalability, residual toxicity, socioeconomic impact or regulatory challenges are not addressed. It is recommended to at least include a comparative summary table between the types of technologies (biofertilizers, bioethanol, animal feed) vs. their advantages, challenges and maturity.
5. Improve the discussion in a critical way that includes an analysis of knowledge gaps, contradictions, research opportunities and specific proposals. Redundancies should be reduced and the academic writing should be improved, eliminating IA type phrases. In addition, the section on practical implications for the tequila sector and policy or investment recommendations in this area should be improved.

6.. Regarding the writing, there are extensive fragments that seem to be written by IA without sufficient editing (e.g., redundant style, generic phrases, non-specific conclusions). The materials and methods section is too superficial for a systematic review article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No Comments

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article was improved based on the reviewers comments.