Smoke Particle, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Total Benzo[a]pyrene Toxic Equivalence Emitted by Palm Oil Sewage Sludge Bio-Char Combustion
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
After reviewing the manuscript “Smoke Particle, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Total Benzo[a]pyrene Toxic Equivalence Emitted by Palm Oil Sewage Sludge Bio-char Combustion”, the manuscript presents a well structure and correct presentation of results.
English language and style a little require editing.
I consider that the presented work requires some modifications before it is suitable for publication.
Work and research are needed on this topic.
I have a few methodological and practical comments.
I do not really think it is correct to put the symbol "BaPTE sum" in the summary.
Figures 3, 4 and 5 are quite illegible. Please consider entering the colors.
There is no statement as to whether it will be easy to introduce similar procedures into the industry and exactly what it would be for. It is also worth paying attention to the costs.
Author Response
Manuscript Number: applsci-1372946  
Title: Smoke Particle, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Total Benzo[a]pyrene Toxic Equivalence Emitted by Palm Oil Sewage Sludge Bio-char Combustion
 
Reviewer #1: Reviewer comments
English language and style a little require editing.
I consider that the presented work requires some modifications before it is suitable for publication.
Work and research are needed on this topic.
I have a few methodological and practical comments.
Comment #1: I do not really think it is correct to put the symbol "BaPTE sum" in the summary.
Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 372-374 (Highlight Green color).
Comment #2: Figures 3, 4 and 5 are quite illegible. Please consider entering the colors.
Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 219-221, line 236-237 and line 248-249 (Highlight Green color).
Comment #3: There is no statement as to whether it will be easy to introduce similar procedures into the industry and exactly what it would be for. It is also worth paying attention to the costs.
Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 353-356 (Highlight Green color).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of this work is of both scientific and societal interest. The work also seems to have been carried out with care. The manuscript may be accepted by addressing the following specific comments.
- There are many abbreviations in the manuscript. These should be defined and spelled out properly before their first use. It is also suggested to avoid use these abbreviations extensively since they will cause difficulties in following the context.
- Abstract should be revised significantly for easy understanding.
- Some part of the work is similar in context to the paper published by the same author in Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5649. The authors should refrain from using the same equation, figures, and equations in this work.
- The temperature measurements part is hard to follow. Please define the "particle temperature" and the other temperature carefully for easy understanding.
- Fig. 8: Abbreviations of captions in the x-axis should be defined.
- Fig. 10 is hard to follow and should be revised completely.
- Table 2 is unnecessary as only three numbers were presented.
- There are totally 420 datasets in the paper. It is suggested that the authors make a clear table to clearly identify all experimental conditions. Some similar data may be put into supporting information
Author Response
Manuscript Number: applsci-1372946  
Title: Smoke Particle, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Total Benzo[a]pyrene Toxic Equivalence Emitted by Palm Oil Sewage Sludge Bio-char Combustion
   
Reviewer #2: Reviewer's comment
Comment #1: There are many abbreviations in the manuscript. These should be defined and spelled out properly before their first use. It is also suggested to avoid use these abbreviations extensively since they will cause difficulties in following the context
Response: This comment has been responded please see (Highlight Yellow color).
Comment #2: Abstract should be revised significantly for easy understanding.
Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 15-22 (Highlight Yellow color).
Comment #3: Some part of the work is similar in context to the paper published by the same author in Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5649. The authors should refrain from using the same equation, figures, and equations in this work.
Response: This comment has been responded; Please see in equation 8 and 9.
Comment #4: The temperature measurements part is hard to follow. Please define the "particle temperature" and the other temperature carefully for easy understanding.
Response: This comment has been responded.
Comment #5: Fig. 8: Abbreviations of captions in the x-axis should be defined.
Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 303-307 and line 313-318 (Highlight Yellow color).
Comment #6: Fig. 10 is hard to follow and should be revised completely.
Response: This comment has been responded.
Comment #7: Table 2 is unnecessary as only three numbers were presented.
Response: This comment has been responded; Please see in equation 12.
Comment #8: There are totally 420 datasets in the paper. It is suggested that the authors make a clear table to clearly identify all experimental conditions. Some similar data may be put into supporting information.
Response: This comment has been responded; please see (Highlight Yellow color).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors addressed most of my comments. The quality of the paper has been improved. Here are several more comments to further improve the quality.
- Since there are many abbreviations and chemical terms used in the paper. It is suggested to add a Nomenclature to include all these abbreviations.
- Figure 10 is still hard to follow. Adding lines or using other methods would be better.
