Critical Factors for Optimum Biodegradation of Bast Fiber’s Gums in Bacterial Retting
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work "Critical factors for optimum biodegradation of bast fiber’s gums in bacterial retting" deals with an extremely interesting and current theme. The paper is well organized and described. I suggest the publication with only some remarks.
The introduction needs to be improved, first the authors need to explain briefly why the retting is important and which effect has on the fibers. Then they need to add some new and/or interesting usage of fiber in which the effect of retting is so important to highlight his importance. For example:
Santoni et al. Improving the sound absorption performance of sustainable thermal insulation materials: natural hemp fibers Applied Acoustics Volume 150, 2019, Pages 279-289
Mazzanti et. Al Reinforcing mechanisms of natural fibers in green composites: role of fibers morphology in a PLA/hemp model system Composites Science and Technology Volume 180, Pages 51-59
Furthermore, the authors need to indicate the alternative to retting adding the specific bibliographic reference to each alternative listed. Finally, a brief description of the scheme of the paper needs to be added at the end of the introduction
I suggest that the authors add a paragraph on the future development of this topic to help colleagues to choose the key research points that have been less studied or are still critical.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General remark - there is no clarity in this review.
The authors identified the topic about the critical factors for the optimal biodegradation of bast fibers, i.e. it should be about those factors, without which it is impossible to achieve the maximum efficiency of the steeping process. In the current version of the manuscript, it is not clear whether the authors define this critical set of factors for the first time or whether they have already been considered in other works before them. If for the first time, then it is necessary to clearly substantiate this fact and specifically talk about them only in the annotation, keywords and conclusion. Now general phrases about factors in the annotation, but in the keywords in general, this aspect of novelty is not presented.
Based on the above, it is necessary to set a clear goal of this review.
The conclusion should contain specific recommendations for further research of this issue or proposals for the effective implementation of well-known innovative processes for soaking bast fibers. Now the personal contribution of the authors of the manuscript to this area of research is not clear at all (there are no references in the list of references). If, nevertheless, it is supposed to optimize the steeping process, then it is imperative to write down which factors will vary (apparently the very ones are critical), by what method (most likely it will be necessary to use a genetic optimization algorithm), and finally what will be improved (determine the objective function by which find the optimum). Specific best practices for steeping the bacterial agent should also be listed (see line 389).
The figures need to be improved: decipher the color gradation, make straight arrows , add mechanized controlled to figure 1 or comment in the text, figure 2 should be enlarged and painted with more contrasting colors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is of interest and approproiate for the journal, by the way some minor corrections are required.
The paper woukd benefit from some figures making it easier to read. The paper lack a correlation between the retting and the property in the fibers that are objective to be modified, some example of application of the fibres after retting would strengthen the paper.
There are some previous reviews such as:
H. Lee,A. Khalina,S. H. Lee,1 and Ming Liu Comprehensive Review on Bast Fibre Retting Process for Optimal Performance in Fibre-Reinforced Polymer Composites Advances in materials science and engineering Volume2020 ID6074063 https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6074063
and other similar reviews that must be addressed stressing the additonal value brought by the present paper to the state of art.
With these amendments the paper is worthy of being published.
Revise general English grammar, in particular :Page 4 Line 144: “The microfibrils are then adding to the crystalline cellulose fibers.” Replace “are adding” with “are added”.
Line 162 “this fraction is not entirely remove by retting “ replace “remove” with “removed
Line 164 “It is assumed that a greater extent of hemicelllosic parts douses the bast from the start hand. “ Is not clear what you mean?
Page 5 Line 174 “differential mono-saccharides units and seven different polysaccharides units observe” replace “observe” with “observed”
Page 6 Line 237 “Application of pectinolytic bacteria as consortia gave superior retting results compare to single strains” replace “compare” with “compared” .
Pag 7 Line 241 replace “observe” with “observed”
Pag9 Line 308 replace “desire” with “desired”
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
OK. The manuscript got better.
