The Energy and Environmental Potential of Waste from the Processing of Hulled Wheat Species

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors!

Thank you for your work! The topic of renewable energy production from agricultural production side products is of great importance to build more sustainable energy system in Europe and elsewhere.

The biggest shortcoming of this article is the poorly described methodology part. The study could not be easily reproduced as it lacks a description of the study site, planting and sampling process. Such questions should be answered as – how large was the study site; if there were replications; exact location of the study site; soil, marginality factor, manure property description; sowing time and depth; etc.

Additionally, as I understand only two samples per species were taken to evaluate the elemental composition of chaff. It has to be described how the sample was taken to be representative (as the analyzed weight is less than 6 mg). Why do you consider that two samples are enough? If so, how the assumption of normal distribution can be met for the ANOVA analysis?

A part of the points described above, the following parts should be improved:

• The abstract should put a bigger focus on the results and conclusions from the experimental study and less introductory information.
• The whole paper has to be reviewed in greater detail, for example, the lines from 108 – 110 – should be cut.
• Statistical tests should be described in more detail.
• Technical mistakes in the reference list, for example, the names in Latin language are not always formatted in italic font (reference 4, 6 & 9).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for revising the manuscript and for your time.

I went through the individual comments and modified the manuscript accordingly. The answers to the individual notes are part of the attached document.

Best regards
Jaroslav Bernas

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper evaluates the potential of energy use of waste emerging from

harvesting and processing of marginal species of Triticum (in the conditions of the Czech Republic grown mainly under organic farming system) and environmental load linked to their life cycle

 

The author may consider the following points to improve the paper quality:

• Abstract:
  • There is no important results presetned in the abastract
  • Abstract structure should be : research purpose (1-2 sentences), research method( 1-2 sentences), main research results(1-2 sentences) and research impact (1-2 sentences)
• Introduction
  • There is no literature review on energy parameters, energy utilization etc on burning the harvest residue of cultural hulled wheat species.
• 1 Field trails
  • Line 60-61 citation
• 2 analysis of phyto-mass
  • Line 60-67, please clarify what is the meaning of the elemental composition of chaff that remained after the dehulling of grains of Spelt, Emmer and Einkorn was determined. How to determine the elemental composition? What method used?
  • What is the purpose of analyzing phyto-mass here? Did you use it in the life-cycle analysis?
• 3 environmental aspects
  • Line 91. is the common practice for seedbed, preparation, fertilization etc consistent with the practices presented in table 1? I did not see any fertilization quantity presented in table 1
• No discussion?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for revising the manuscript and for your time.

I went through the individual comments and modified the manuscript accordingly. The answers to the individual notes are part of the attached document.

Best regards
Jaroslav Bernas

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

 

please find my 26 comments in the attached annotated PDF version of your manuscript.

 

Kind regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for revising the manuscript and for your time. I went through the individual comments and modified the manuscript accordingly. The answers to the individual notes are part of the attached pdf.

Best regards

Jaroslav Bernas

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your work! The manuscript now gives a better overview of the study you and your colleagues conducted and the abstract is great.

There are few points you ought to consider: 

• adding standard deviation to the third table
• describing how the sample was homogenized (line 96)
• improve the conclusion section

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you again for your time and constructive comments. I went through the manuscript and performed the steps you suggested (responses in annex). Besides, I re-checked other parts of the text.

I believe that the proposed modifications will meet your ideas.

Jaroslav Bernas

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Well done.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your time and for valuable comments that have helped improve my manuscript.

I appreciate your approach and efforts to help us.

Best regards

Jaroslav Bernas