Pilot-Scale Anaerobic Digestion of Pig Manure with Thermal Pretreatment: Stability Monitoring to Improve the Potential for Obtaining Methane

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I liked your introduction, highlighting the market demand of "alternative energy sources to diversify the energy matrix, reduce dependence on fossil fuels". This is indeed a key driver of such research projects and technology development initiatives. 

After such an excellent introduction that would set the "big picture", your conclusions are very limited to the research results. Please, make a strong connection with your arguments used in your introduction, highlighting the value added of your research to the unmet needs of the market, the development of alternative energy sources versus the current literature results.

Please, also highlight in your conclusions the limitations of your research and the next steps to be taken in order to develop a cost-efficient, viable technology that could meet market needs.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

In advance, the authors extend a cordial greeting and sincerest thanks for your comments and suggestions, that allowed us to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript. Below are responses to reviewers' comments and modifications made based on those reviews. The most significant changes are highlighted in red in the manuscript.

Response 1. The authors thank you for your valuable suggestions. The authors have carefully revised the changes are highlighted in red in the attached documents. Also, the authors made minor changes in order to improve the English of the manuscript.

"Please see the attachment".

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion the submited manuscript need only small improvements before publication. For details please look at my  text and comments in the uploaded file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

In advance, the authors extend a cordial greeting and sincerest thanks for your comments and suggestions, that allowed us to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript. Below are responses to reviewers' comments and modifications made based on those reviews. The most significant changes are highlighted in red in the manuscript.

Response 2. The authors thank you for your valuable suggestions. The authors have carefully revised the changes are highlighted in red in the attached documents. Also, the authors made minor changes in order to improve the English of the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx