Possibilities of Climate Control of Poultry Complexes through Co-Combustion of Poultry Waste–Solid Biomass for Agriculture in Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the abstract, authors have written "this fuel". Which fuel ?

This sentence is not in connection with the previous sentence. 

The abstract is poorly written. It need to be rewritten.

2. In figure 2, it is 𝑄𝑎𝑖𝑟 .. there is spelling mistake

3. The authors did not mention any thing about the green house gases released from poultry waste 

4. What is the composition of poultry waste?

5. How this waste is used as fertilizer (mentioned in abstract). 

6. Is any processing is carried out for the poultry waste after production of the fuel?

7. References are not properly formatted.

8. The manuscript need a lot of improvements.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Can be improved

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, the authors of the proposed paper would like to thank you for your time, effort and interest dedicated for evaluating the manuscript no. 2792094. We appreciate each observation and recommendation you made, since they will greatly increase the quality of the paper to its final version.

We have carefully analysed all the comments and observations and we modified the paper accordingly. Point-by-point, the details on the manuscript revision are given below:

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the abstract, authors have written "this fuel". Which fuel ?

This sentence is not in connection with the previous sentence. 

The abstract is poorly written. It need to be rewritten.

The abstract has been rewritten.

2. In figure 2, it is ?_?ir there is spelling mistake.

The correction has been made.

3. The authors did not mention any thing about the green house gases released from poultry waste. 

This aspect have been discussed within lines 344-345.

4. What is the composition of poultry waste?

The composition of poultry waste is inserted in the manuscript. This aspect have been discussed within lines 103-110.

5. How this waste is used as fertilizer (mentioned in abstract).

This waste can be used as fertiliser following the co-combustion process. This aspect was not aimt the present researchers and will be approached in our future works.

6. Is any processing is carried out for the poultry waste after production of the fuel?

The fuel is a mixture of raw poultry waste, as taken from the shed, and solid biomass. The remaining poultry waste not used for co-combustion follows the classical greening path. This aspect have been discussed within lines 111-113.

7. References are not properly formatted.

In this stage, a significant amount of the references has been formatted in accordance with the journal requirements.

8. The manuscript need a lot of improvements.

Important improvements have been made regarding the references, waste composition, methodology. Also added Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.

9. Comments on the Quality of English Language - Can be improved

Quality of English Language was improved.

 

General note: The modifications (improvements, new added text and references) were made in green throughout the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study signifies the possibilities of valorization of avian waste and reduction in related pollution by exploring the potential of preserved phosphorus and potassium in the ash as fertilizer. The study may serve as a basis for the proper utilization of Avian waste-based air conditioning operations by co-combusting poultry waste with solid biomass. Therefore, the study could provide a new direction in this research area. The methodology, results and conclusion have been presented satisfactorily in the manuscript. However, the authors should focus on the following suggestions to improve the manuscript:

1. The manuscript started with a general consideration section and no introduction section. Therefore, authors should incorporate a proper Introduction section consisting of an overview of the topic, the literature gap, and the importance and novelty of this review article.

2. There is a need to incorporate discussion in the manuscript. At present, only results have been presented. Authors should justify their results in comparison with other available literature.

3. Authors have studied fuel consumption in various terms. Performing an economic/ cost analysis along with fuel consumption study would be better.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, the authors of the proposed paper would like to thank you for your time, effort and interest dedicated for evaluating the manuscript no. 2792094. We appreciate each observation and recommendation you made, since they will greatly increase the quality of the paper to its final version.

We have carefully analysed all the comments and observations and we modified the paper accordingly. Point-by-point, the details on the manuscript revision are given below:

 Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The manuscript started with a general consideration section and no introduction section. Therefore, authors should incorporate a proper Introduction section consisting of an overview of the topic, the literature gap, and the importance and novelty of this review article.

The "Introduction" section was significantly improved by conducting a bibliographic study that included a number of 26 references. It was stated that in the literature (line 52) the subject is not addressed. The present approach (co-combustion of poultry waste with solid biomass) represents a novelty in the field (line 54).

2. There is a need to incorporate discussion in the manuscript. At present, only results have been presented. Authors should justify their results in comparison with other available literature.

Added details on how to get results.  

3. Authors have studied fuel consumption in various terms. Performing an economic/ cost analysis along with fuel consumption study would be better.

In this phase the authors have not extended the research in order to perform a rigorous calculation from an economic point of view. Validation of the proposal was desired, which was achieved and it was shown that the proposed solution ergonomizes waste processing costs (drying, pelletizing, etc.), storage and transport in ecological conditions, costs that cannot be neglected. This aspect have been discussed within lines 317-322.

4. Comments on the Quality of English Language - Minor editing of English language required

Quality of English Language was improved

 

General note: The modifications (improvements, new added text and references) were made in green throughout the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.       Enhance the structure of the abstract by briefly outlining the theoretical analysis, experimental findings, environmental and cost implications, and application in a chicken rearing hall.

2.       Why is the co-combustion of poultry waste and solid biomass important?

3.       What are the broader implications for energy technology and environmental sustainability?

4.       Describe the theoretical and experimental methods used in analysing the co-combustion dynamics.

5.       Elaborate the specific results obtained from the co-combustion process, especially in terms of energy efficiency and environmental impact.

6.       Discuss the implications of achieving an environmentally friendly and low-cost energy technology.

7.       Emphasize the importance of preserving phosphorus and potassium in the ash, comparing it with proportions in solid biomass ash.

8.       Discuss how preservation of phosphorus and potassium makes the resulting ash a more valuable fertilizer.

9.       Provide potential agricultural benefits and applications of the ash as a fertilizer.

10.   How the co-combustion solution in heating a chicken rearing hall module aligns with the needs of different developmental stages in the chicken-bird flow.

11.   How the research findings could be applied in other similar contexts or industries.

12.   Elaborate on any specific challenges or advantages of Romania's temperate-continental climate presents for the proposed co-combustion solution.

13.   Brief comparative analysis with other existing energy solutions for chicken rearing halls.

 

14.   Highlight the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed co-combustion method.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Review the manuscript for grammatical accuracy and clarity. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, the authors of the proposed paper would like to thank you for your time, effort and interest dedicated for evaluating the manuscript no. 2792094. We appreciate each observation and recommendation you made, since they will greatly increase the quality of the paper to its final version.

We have carefully analysed all the comments and observations and we modified the paper accordingly. Point-by-point, the details on the manuscript revision are given below:

 Enhance the structure of the abstract by briefly outlining the theoretical analysis, experimental findings, environmental and cost implications, and application in a chicken rearing hall.

Improvements have been made in accordance with the recommendation.

2. Why is the co-combustion of poultry waste and solid biomass important?

It is an experimentally validated solution, which energetically and ecologically utilizes poultry waste at the source and streamlines costs. This aspect have been discussed within lines 319-322.

3. What are the broader implications for energy technology and environmental sustainability?

This aspect have been discussed within lines 357-361.

4. Describe the theoretical and experimental methods used in analysing the co-combustion dynamics.

This aspect have been discussed within lines 103-110.

5. Elaborate the specific results obtained from the co-combustion process, especially in terms of energy efficiency and environmental impact.

This aspect have been discussed within lines 147-159.

6. Discuss the implications of achieving an environmentally friendly and low-cost energy technology.

Achieving an environmentally friendly and low-cost energy technology like the case study analised in the manuscript can help Roumania (and also other countries) reach the EU targets regarding energy efficiency and environmental protection. This aspect have been discussed within lines 314-322.

7. Emphasize the importance of preserving phosphorus and potassium in the ash, comparing it with proportions in solid biomass ash.

This aspect have been discussed within lines 340-345.

8. Discuss how preservation of phosphorus and potassium makes the resulting ash a more valuable fertilizer.

This aspect have been discussed within lines 59-69 and 340-345.

9. Provide potential agricultural benefits and applications of the ash as a fertilizer.

These aspects have been discussed within lines 59-69 and 340-345.

10. How the co-combustion solution in heating a chicken rearing hall module aligns with the needs of different developmental stages in the chicken-bird flow.

According to the calculations presented in chapter 3 of the manuscript, only a part of the poultry manure is neccessary to be used for its co-combustion with solid biomass in order to ensure the required energy for the chiecken rearing modules climate control.

11. How the research findings could be applied in other similar contexts or industries.

By applying the proposed solution.

12. Elaborate on any specific challenges or advantages of Romania's temperate-continental climate presents for the proposed co-combustion solution.

As the winter is cold and the summer very hot, a large energy consumption is required for air conditioning the hall. The ecological solution of avian waste recovery is validated in the manuscript and reduces costs.

13. Brief comparative analysis with other existing energy solutions for chicken rearing halls.

The solution is a novelty. This aspect have been discussed within lines 52-55.

14. Highlight the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed co-combustion method.

The research will be extended, these aspects will be addressed in detail in other articles, which have been succinctly presented in this manuscript.

15. Comments on the Quality of English Language - Review the manuscript for grammatical accuracy and clarity. 

Quality of English Language was improved.

 

General note: The modifications (improvements, new added text and references) were made in green throughout the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is not ready to be a scientific paper. There are many flaws, as:

1. Surnames of authors are with mistakes.

2. Abstract is not clear, it has no scientific parts.

3. Text itself is not a scientific and therefore can not be a background for paper.

4. Authors self-cite for 14 times of 22 references. This is not acceptable.

5. Methodology is completely unclear.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English must be revised.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, the authors of the proposed paper would like to thank you for your time, effort and interest dedicated for evaluating the manuscript no. 2792094. We appreciate each observation and recommendation you made, since they will greatly increase the quality of the paper to its final version.

We have carefully analysed all the comments and observations and we modified the paper accordingly. Point-by-point, the details on the manuscript revision are given below:

 Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is not ready to be a scientific paper. There are many flaws, as:

1. Surnames of authors are with mistakes.

Corrections have been made.

2. Abstract is not clear, it has no scientific parts.

The abstract has been structurally modified and improved.

3. Text itself is not a scientific and therefore can not be a background for paper.

The authors based on the reviewers’ comments and suggestions revised the manuscript.

4. Authors self-cite for 14 times of 22 references. This is not acceptable.

The references has been modified according to all additions made. Currently, the references includes a number of 48 references, of which 14 are by the authors, representing previous research in the field of combustion. These researches led to the new co-combustion solution presented in the manuscript.

5. Methodology is completely unclear.

The changes made to the manuscript according to the recommendations increased the clarity of the methodology. This aspect have been discussed within lines 103-113, 149-157, 204-213, 314-322 and 340-345.

6. Comments on the Quality of English Language - English must be revised.

Quality of English Language was improved.

 

General note: The modifications (improvements, new added text and references) were made in green throughout the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

NIL

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has improved. Should be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have completed the evaluation of the revised manuscript titled " Possibilities of climate control of poultry complexes through co-combustion of poultry waste - solid biomass, for agriculture in Romania. I am pleased to announce that the authors have diligently addressed all the comments raised by me. The revised version of the manuscript now presents a well-written narrative, a logical structure, and notable contributions to the field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

the revised manuscript was improved, but the main issues were not improved.

 1. Why surname of D. STOICA is in capital letters?

 2. The aim „The aim of this study was to recover 11 energy from the poultry waste and to use it for heating a 1000 m3 chicken rearing complex.“ Is not scientific. Such aim could be for student laboratory work. There is no any problem description, identification dependencies, impact of your investigation on something or similar things. Identify gaps in existing knowledge to emphasize the significance of your research.

 3. Authors added some more references, but self-citation too high. This is not acceptable.

 4. Results are just list of made measurements during winter period. Authors are not looking for any impact. E.g. dependency of poultry number on manure quantity and energy generation, poultry age impact calorific value of manure and etc. But now these measurements are not scientifically sound. At the moment this is just technological analysis of manure burning in boiler.

5. Fig 2 must be scheme, but not photo with unclear devices.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English needs minor corrections.

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the second revision of the paper and your valuable comments! As a result of your analysis and requests, the manuscript has been filled in purple for each issues you have referred to. 

1. Why surname of D. STOICA is in capital letters?

It was an error and it was fixed.

 

2. The aim „The aim of this study was to recover energy from the poultry waste and to use it for heating a 1000 m³ chicken rearing complex.“ Is not scientific. Such aim could be for student laboratory work. There is no any problem description, identification dependencies, impact of your investigation on something or similar things. Identify gaps in existing knowledge to emphasize the significance of your research.

The respective phrase from the abstract has been changed as follows:

“The current work is focused on a case study regarding the energy recovery from poultry waste in order to use it for heating a 1000 m³ chicken rearing complex in Romania, considering the specific climatic conditions. Even if biomass has a significant national potential, there are only few experimental incentives in Romania to use it for energy production.”

Also, problem description, dependencies and impact have been addressed by inserting a new paragraph (see lines 41-50).

Furthermore, we provide some additional details and explanations, as follows:

The experimental research was carried out in one of the 18 identical halls of a real poultry complex, located near the Romania’s capital Bucharest (see lines 99-101) and (see lines 359-361). This 1000m³ hall represented the calculation module that can be reduced or expanded accordingly for the maximum accepted thermal power of 40W/m3 (see lines 223-225) and (see lines 335-337). The fuel consumption calculations were performed for the annual waste average resulting for the calculation module (see lines 347-348).

 

3. Authors added some more references, but self-citation too high. This is not acceptable.

A number of 7 self-citation articles has been removed, while 3 new references have been added. The numbering of the references within the manuscript has been modified accordingly.

 

4. Results are just list of made measurements during winter period. Authors are not looking for any impact. E.g. dependency of poultry number on manure quantity and energy generation, poultry age impact calorific value of manure and etc. But now these measurements are not scientifically sound. At the moment this is just technological analysis of manure burning in boiler.

The experimental research of the combustion of poultry litter mixed with biomass for a module of 1000 m3 laid the foundations for the transition to industrial level research. The fuel consumption calculation was made for one calendar year, in six distinct chick growth cycles, based on the average amount of litter resulting for the considered calculation module. The calculation shows that among the four seasons defined by the temperate continental climate, in summer we have negligible fuel consumption (Figure 12); therefore we note that the large proportion of fuel consumption is in the cold season, especially in winter.

 

5. 2 must be scheme, but not photo with unclear devices.

The photo of the experimental boiler has been removed, being replaced by the cross-sectional and front diagrams.

 

6. English needs minor corrections.

The English has been improved.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf