Golden Berry Waste for Electricity Generation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

welldone

Author Response

Dear referee, thank you very much for the comments.
best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors:

I am glad to review your manuscript entitled "Aguaymanto waste for electricity generation". Please refer to my comments and suggestions:

• Please use either "Aguaymanto" or "Golden Berry" in the title, abstract, keywords. It is better to use "Golden Berry" since it is common name for majority countries
•  Please remove first paragraph in the introduction.
• In the abstract, please use correct subscript and superscript for the units, such as mW/cm².
• Last sentence of abstract should be changed to a more scientific way. Benefit to companies only?
• In the line 39 of introduction, please add the general problems of electricity generation from fossil fuels, alternative technologies to generate electricity, such as gasification, co-combustion, solar energy, and wind turbine using the following articles. Then, describe the MFC technology.
  • Ruiz, J. A., Juárez, M. C., Morales, M. P., Muñoz, P., & Mendívil, M. A. (2013). Biomass gasification for electricity generation: Review of current technology barriers. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 18, 174-183.
  • Qian, X., Lee, S., Chandrasekaran, R., Yang, Y., Caballes, M., Alamu, O., & Chen, G. (2019). Electricity evaluation and emission characteristics of poultry litter co-combustion process. Applied Sciences, 9(19), 4116.
  •  Dincer, F. (2011). The analysis on photovoltaic electricity generation status, potential and policies of the leading countries in solar energy. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 15(1), 713-720.
  • Mohammadi, K., Mostafaeipour, A., Dinpashoh, Y., & Pouya, N. (2014). Electricity generation and energy cost estimation of large-scale wind turbines in Jarandagh, Iran. Journal of Energy, 2014.
• In line 77, "will be" should be not used since the study was already completed.
• What is VITEK in line 82?
• From line 61 to line 74, authors only mentioned results from several studies that focus on electricity generation using the fruit and kitchen wastes. What's the research gaps now based on these studies?
•  In line 84, GR? or GB?
• Please remove Figure 7 into the section 2.1 Construction of MFC and combine with Figure 1 to explain more clear for your MFC prototype.
• Please check the section number again. There are two 2.1 sections.
• Change "3. Results and Analysis" into "3. Results and Discussion."
• In Figure 2, voltage and current are supposed to be changed every seconds, minutes, and hours. How did you obtain one value for one day? Average or pick one specific time of the day?
• In page 8, Table 1, please use English for the first row.
• In Figure 5, what is inicial? (Not initial?) It is GR or GB waste?
• From line 201 to 211, please double check the chemical bonds, such as C=OO^-?
• For the abbreviation, such as GB, MFC, FTIR. Please mention it first appear and use the abbreviation later in the whole manuscript.
• Figure 7 can not be the results. It should be the experimental setup.
• In 2. Material and Method, please add the "BLAST program" and "MEGA X software" to perform rDNA sequence and dendorgram.
• Please add future study in the conclusion part.

I am looking forward to receive your revised manuscript.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

the modifications made are observed in the manuscript and the answers in the attached comment.

• Please use either "Aguaymanto" or "Golden Berry" in the title, abstract, keywords. It is better to use "Golden Berry" since it is common name for majority countries

          changed

•  Please remove first paragraph in the introduction.

      changed

• In the abstract, please use correct subscript and superscript for the units, such as mW/cm².

        changed

• Last sentence of abstract should be changed to a more scientific way. Benefit to companies only?

        improved

• In line 77, "will be" should be not used since the study was already completed.

improved

• What is VITEK in line 82?

improved

• From line 61 to line 74, authors only mentioned results from several studies that focus on electricity generation using the fruit and kitchen wastes. What's the research gaps now based on these studies?

There is no research carried out on the use of GB as fuels in MFC

•  In line 84, GR? or GB?

improved

• Please remove Figure 7 into the section 2.1 Construction of MFC and combine with Figure 1 to explain more clear for your MFC prototype.

The authors consider that the division of the graphics should be maintained by the point of view of another referee.

• Please check the section number again. There are two 2.1 sections.

OK

• Change "3. Results and Analysis" into "3. Results and Discussion."
• In Figure 2, voltage and current are supposed to be changed every seconds, minutes, and hours. How did you obtain one value for one day? Average or pick one specific time of the day?

• In section 2.5, first line, the clarification was made

• In page 8, Table 1, please use English for the first row.

improved

• In Figure 5, what is inicial? (Not initial?) It is GR or GB waste?

improved

• From line 201 to 211, please double check the chemical bonds, such as C=OO^-?

Its right

• For the abbreviation, such as GB, MFC, FTIR. Please mention it first appear and use the abbreviation later in the whole manuscript.

• It is the initial and final transmittance spectrum of the substrate used.

• Figure 7 can not be the results. It should be the experimental setup.

improved

• In 2. Material and Method, please add the "BLAST program" and "MEGA X software" to perform rDNA sequence and dendorgram.

The authors recommend following references 18 and 19 for more information, so as not to overextend that part.

• Please add future study in the conclusion part.

Made in the last line of conclusions

best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The current submission repoted electricity generation from a designed MFC using Golden Berry waste as substrate for MO. The submission can be accepted after major revision.

1. 2.1. The authors please provide the composition analysis of Golden Berry waste so the audience can obtain some idea about how much starch and/or cellulose sitting inside for MO use.
2. 2.2 What's the initial # of  electrogenic microorganisms inoculated?
3. Fig 2 and 3: A detailed discussion was encouraged to explain why the electrogenic microorganisms lose it's ability for electricity generation.
4. Why the authors choose Golden Berry waste for the study? There are many more agricultural wastes which may also rich in sugar-based ingredients for MO.
5.  Is the current generate from the study comparable to other publications? Will the 2.9V reported in this study suitable for most of the electronic devices?

Author Response

2.1. The authors please provide the composition analysis of Golden Berry waste so the audience can obtain some idea about how much starch and/or cellulose sitting inside for MO use.

2.2 What's the initial # of  electrogenic microorganisms inoculated?

 

The initial microorganisms were not carried out mainly due to the fact that it was wanted to observe which organisms were attached to the anode in the final stage, but for future investigations it will be taken into account.

 

I hope that the revised manuscript is to your liking.

 

Why the authors choose Golden Berry waste for the study? There are many more agricultural wastes which may also rich in sugar-based ingredients for MO.

-Mainly due to its high production in Peru and the large amounts of waste that originate.

Is the current generate from the study comparable to other publications?

-There is no equal amount generated in the literary review carried out

Will the 2.9V reported in this study suitable for most of the electronic devices?

-Although 2.9V is enough to turn on a remote control for larger applications, it has to be carried out on a large scale and standardizing some parameters, for example the pH

 

best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors:

It was glad to review your revised version major changes, below has the additional comments that also include you did not respond and change for the first comments:

• In Figure 2, why did you select 10AM everyday? any particular reason to select 10AM? It is better to use average reading of particular day in the future study.
• In the abstract, please add what is FITR?
• Please check the last sentence of abstract which is not clear....
•  In Figure 5, red line should be "Initial" and title of line should be changed.
• Figure 7 can not be the results. It should be the experimental setup. You should moved it to the Method Part.
• Figure 3 is not readable. Please a better version.
• In abstract you mentioned "The environmental problems caused by the excessive use of fossil fuels for electricity 15 generation have led to the development of new technologies. ", but you did not include this part in the introduction. Therefore , beginning of the introduction, please add the general environmental problems (e.g., global warming, acid rain, and haze) of electricity generation from fossil fuels. Then, mentioned the alternative technologies to generate electricity, such as gasification, co-combustion, solar energy using the following articles. Then, start to describe the MFC technology will be more .
  • Ruiz, J. A., Juárez, M. C., Morales, M. P., Muñoz, P., & Mendívil, M. A. (2013). Biomass gasification for electricity generation: Review of current technology barriers. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 18, 174-183.
  • Qian, X., Lee, S., Chandrasekaran, R., Yang, Y., Caballes, M., Alamu, O., & Chen, G. (2019). Electricity evaluation and emission characteristics of poultry litter co-combustion process. Applied Sciences, 9(19), 4116.
  • Dincer, F. (2011). The analysis on photovoltaic electricity generation status, potential and policies of the leading countries in solar energy. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 15(1), 713-720.
• Titles of the All Figures, please use Fig. 1., or Figure 1 instead of Figure 01 (for all the remaining Figures 1 to 7).
• Figure 1 is not very clear. Please change a better version.
• From line 61 to line 74, authors only mentioned results from several studies that focus on electricity generation using the fruit and kitchen wastes. Why these studies helped your study? What's the research gaps now based on these studies? It should be added before the last paragraph.
• In line 245, what is "10 °Brix"?
• Overall, Extensive english grammar and writing style should be changed by a technical writer.

Hope authors correct all the comments.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

• In Figure 2, why did you select 10AM everyday? any particular reason to select 10AM? It is better to use average reading of particular day in the future study.

Ans. Basically it is because due to the pandemic, we only have a few hours a day to attend the laboratory, the laboratory was temperature controlled all the time.

• In the abstract, please add what is FITR?

Ans. ok

• Please check the last sentence of abstract which is not clear....

Ans. ok

•  In Figure 5, red line should be "Initial" and title of line should be changed.

Ans. ok

• Figure 7 can not be the results. It should be the experimental setup. You should moved it to the Method Part.

Ans. The authors decide to leave it as it is because it is the final result of the application, if the method is changed there will be doubts as to how the result was generated.

• Figure 3 is not readable. Please a better version.

Ans. ok

• In abstract you mentioned "The environmental problems caused by the excessive use of fossil fuels for electricity 15 generation have led to the development of new technologies. ", but you did not include this part in the introduction. Therefore , beginning of the introduction, please add the general environmental problems (e.g., global warming, acid rain, and haze) of electricity generation from fossil fuels. Then, mentioned the alternative technologies to generate electricity, such as gasification, co-combustion, solar energy using the following articles. Then, start to describe the MFC technology will be more .
  • Ruiz, J. A., Juárez, M. C., Morales, M. P., Muñoz, P., & Mendívil, M. A. (2013). Biomass gasification for electricity generation: Review of current technology barriers. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 18, 174-183.
  • Qian, X., Lee, S., Chandrasekaran, R., Yang, Y., Caballes, M., Alamu, O., & Chen, G. (2019). Electricity evaluation and emission characteristics of poultry litter co-combustion process. Applied Sciences, 9(19), 4116.
  • Dincer, F. (2011). The analysis on photovoltaic electricity generation status, potential and policies of the leading countries in solar energy. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 15(1), 713-720.

Ans.Ok, I only used the reference of "Qian, X., Lee, S., Chandrasekaran, R., Yang, Y., Caballes, M., Alamu, O., & Chen, G. (2019). Electricity evaluation and emission characteristics of poultry litter co-combustion process. Applied Sciences, 9(19), 4116." for being the most current.

Titles of the All Figures, please use Fig. 1., or Figure 1 instead of Figure 01 (for all the remaining Figures 1 to 7).

Ans. ok

• Figure 1 is not very clear. Please change a better version.

Ans. ok

• From line 61 to line 74, authors only mentioned results from several studies that focus on electricity generation using the fruit and kitchen wastes. Why these studies helped your study? What's the research gaps now based on these studies? It should be added before the last paragraph.

Ans. In that part it was only used to highlight that our research obtained better results than those used as references.

• In line 245, what is "10 °Brix"?Overall, Extensive english grammar and writing style should be changed by a technical writer.

Ans. ok

Hope authors correct all the comments.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I am happy with the revision.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.
regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

I am happy with the revision.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.
regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf