Bioenergy, Electricity, Biogas Production, and Emission Reduction Using the Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Municipal Solid Waste in Campinas, One of the Largest Brazilian Cities
, Jenniffer Tamayo-Peña 1, Bruna de Souza Moraes 2 and Telma Teixeira Franco 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Methane (CH4) potential of four different organic fractions of MSW – paper (PFW), garden (GFW), food (FFW) and a mixture of these three (OFMSW) – by AD, the energy potential, economic and environ mental impacts for Campinas were investigated in this paper. The work is well organised and presented, I recommend acceptance after minor revision.
(1) It is suggested to increase the economical comparisonof different technologies.
（2）The conclusion can be more concise.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to analyze our research results. Please see the attachment file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The text contains a number of mistakes and missing blank spaces (e. g. between value and unit). There are also some sentences and phrases that are not comprehensible. In some cases the use of English language could be improved through restructuring of sentences by a native English speaker.
The following issues should be discussed and added:
· The authors should use a uniform spelling for the unit “NmL CH4 gVS-1“.
· Table 3 is hard to read/understand. In some cases the lines are on different heights and the assignment is not clear.
The specific comments are summarized in the attached pdf file “Specific comments_processes-2038038”.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to analyze our research results. Please see the attachment file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, the methane potential of four different organic fractions were studied through batch experiments and model stimulations, and the bioenergy and electricity potentials were estimated theoretically. There are some key questions need be solved to promote the novelty.
1. This study implemented both small-scale lab experiments and large-scale regional statistics, and the key points of experimental data or statistical fruit were not very clear, which resulted in distracted focuses.
2. The experimental design of the anaerobic digestion was not very clear, which lacked the reactor description, substrate and inoculum proportion, reacting conditions, detailed characteristics of raw materials, etc.
3. The results of experimental BMPs and their model simulation required more deep discussion, besides the comparison with other literatures.
4. Some text and figures should be modified, such as the resolutions of the figures, etc.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to analyze our research results. Please see the attachment file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have revised the manuscript carefully according to the reviewers' comments, and the description of the figures could be re-organized properly.
Author Response
Thank you for the Comments. Please see the attachment file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
