Energy and Exergy Analysis of Biogas-Powered Power Plant from Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food and Animal Waste
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
My comments on the manuscript ID processes-1184938 below:
The topic and scope of research presented in the manuscript corresponds to the Processes journal profile.
Abstract - The author fails to emphasize the novelty and significance of the study. Authors should clearly formulate the aim of the research An abstract summarizes, usually in one paragraph of 150-250 words or less, the major aspects of the entire paper in a prescribed sequence that includes: i) the overall purpose of the study and the research problem (s) you investigated; ii) the basic design of the study; iii) major findings or trends found as a result of your analysis; and, iv) a brief summary of your interpretations, recommendations as a way forward and conclusions.
Graphical abstract would be very useful for the reader. It would help in understanding the authors' intentions and the scheme of the research work carried out.
The introduction should show the reader more what the authors' research brings to the commonly known knowledge, which inspired them to plan and implement them, and what new they bring to science. This is completely missing and needs to be completed.
The authors did not formulate any research hypotheses. This should be the starting point for research planning. What did they expect? What were they trying to verify? Needs to be completed.
The methodology is quite complex and complicated. For this reason in the methodology, in the first chapter the Experimental design subsection would be very useful. Concepts of research and the division of experiments into stages, series and experimental variants should be provided. Perhaps, diagram or table would be useful in this case.
The methodology is too long and not understandable to the reader. A lot of information is rather the results section. The methodology section must be rewritten, shortened and corrected.
The methodology did not specify with which statistical methods the significance of differences between the analyzed variables was assessed. It needs to be completed.
Scientific discussion must be supplemented and expanded with a full comparative analysis with the currently published, current scientific works.
Author Response
Response to Reviewers’ Comments
The authors would like to thank the Editor and the Reviewers for their assessment and the
Comments raised are helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript. We have taken all the
Comments on board and carried out improvement to the manuscript. The texts with heading
“Answer” are our actions or explanations of the comments raised by the Reviewer.
The revisions in the manuscript are highlighted in “yellow”.
Question 1
Abstract - The author fails to emphasize the novelty and significance of the study. Authors should clearly formulate the aim of the research An abstract summarizes, usually in one paragraph of 150-250 words or less, the major aspects of the entire paper in a prescribed sequence that includes: i) the overall purpose of the study and the research problem (s) you investigated; ii) the basic design of the study; iii) major findings or trends found as a result of your analysis; and, iv) a brief summary of your interpretations, recommendations as a way forward and conclusions.
Answer
The authors appreciate the reviewer for this comment. The abstract have been improved to include critical points stated by the authors. The general problem and research gap has been added in the first line of the abstract. Also the interpretation of the result is also added.
Question 2
Graphical abstract would be very useful for the reader. It would help in understanding the authors' intentions and the scheme of the research work carried out.
Answer
The graphical abstract have been included in the manuscript.
Question 3
The introduction should show the reader more what the authors' research brings to the commonly known knowledge, which inspired them to plan and implement them, and what new they bring to science. This is completely missing and needs to be completed.
Answer
The authors appreciate the reviewer for this comment. The authors have included in the introduction the inspiration behind the study. The authors explained that the progress in the production of biogas from co-digestion, which solved several challenges in mono-digestion, inspired this study. Also, there is very limited studies in literature regarding analysis of electricity production from co-digestion, and this is especially needed as the need to improve Renewable energy production for power generation has become more crucial in this period of time.
Question 4
The authors did not formulate any research hypotheses. This should be the starting point for research planning. What did they expect? What were they trying to verify? Needs to be completed.
Answer
The authors appreciate the reviewer comment. This comment have been added in the introduction section. The authors stated the variables to be verified in the modelling of the system.
Question 5
The methodology is quite complex and complicated. For this reason in the methodology, in the first chapter the Experimental design subsection would be very useful. Concepts of research and the division of experiments into stages, series and experimental variants should be provided. Perhaps, diagram or table would be useful in this case.
Question 6
The methodology is too long and not understandable to the reader. A lot of information is rather the results section. The methodology section must be rewritten, shortened and corrected.
Answer
Thanks for this comment. The system modeling section has been shortened leaving the only the section which the authors deem important.
Question 7
The methodology did not specify with which statistical methods the significance of differences between the analyzed variables was assessed. It needs to be completed.
Answer
Thanks for this comment. The variables analyzed in the results section have been listed and the reasoning behind selecting these particular variables was also given. This was described in page 4 of the manuscript.
Question 8
Scientific discussion must be supplemented and expanded with a full comparative analysis with the currently published, current scientific works.
Answer
The authors appreciate the reviewer's comment. The discussion section has been improved, as compared with other studies in terms of the result gotten was shown.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript presents a very interesting energetic and exergetic analysis. Merits to be published.
Literature up-to-date.
Author Response
Response to Reviewers’ Comments
The authors would like to thank the Editor and the Reviewers for their assessment and the
Comments raised are helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript. We have taken all the
Comments on board and carried out improvement to the manuscript. The texts with heading
“Answer” are our actions or explanations of the comments raised by the Reviewer.
The revisions in the manuscript are highlighted in “yellow”.
Minor Spell check
Answer
The authors appreciate the reviewer for the comment. The whole manuscript have been re-read and spelling corrections made.
Reviewer 3 Report
Experimental work done by the authors and the result is very pleasant. The article is well written and informative; there was an appropriate research discussion with the tests. Therefore, it is recommended to publish in "Processes" Journal.
Other weaknesses to be corrected:
Keywords should be in alphabetical order.
Please improve the manuscript with a English proofreading
Author Response
Response to Reviewers’ Comments
The authors would like to thank the Editor and the Reviewers for their assessment and the
Comments raised are helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript. We have taken all the
Comments on board and carried out improvement to the manuscript. The texts with heading
“Answer” are our actions or explanations of the comments raised by the Reviewer.
The revisions in the manuscript are highlighted in “yellow”.
Question 1
Keywords should be in alphabetical order.
Answer
The authors appreciate the reviewer for the comment. The keywords have been arranged in an alphabetical order.
Question 2
Please improve the manuscript with a English proofreading
Answer
The authors appreciate the reviewer for the comment. The whole manuscript has been reread and English corrections have been made.
