Valorization of Macauba (Acromia aculeata) for Integrated Production of Lipase by Yarrowia lipolytica and Biodiesel Esters
, Marcelle A. Farias 1, Júlio Cesar Soares Sales 1, Adriano Carniel 1, Bernardo Dias Ribeiro 1, Verônica Regina de Oliveira Lopes 1, Aline Machado Castro 2 and Maria Alice Zarur Coelho 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe submitted paper is very good in terms of textual structure and scientific content, and it is quite important since it is based on empirical work.
The manuscript shows an interesting topic of investigation of the potential production of lipase by Yarrovia lipolytica and biodiesel esters from macuba (Acronia aculeata) for the integrated process of enzyme and esters production by complex exploitation of this raw material in biodiesel production. It is quite an interesting approach, and the authors carried out extensive laboratory research.
However, the title of the manuscript is not appropriate. Biorefinery development is not the subject of this work, not even a concept of biorefinery production is provided. Therefore, I have suggested the correction of the manuscript title. Some terms in the manuscript must be precisely explained and specified and the presentation of the results may be improved. All the suggestions are provided in the attached file. If authors can make minor revisions and provide corrections, I think that the work should be published with regard to the interesting topic, systematic way of presentation, and discussion of the results.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
REVIEWER REPORT(S):
We appreciate editor and the reviewers’ comments, which have helped us to improve our work. We have carefully considered all the suggestions, addressing, and incorporating them in the manuscript as detailed below.
Answer to reviewer’s report for manuscript fermentation-2720706
Response to reviewer 1:
Comment 1
Line 2: “Biorefinery development is not the subject of this work, not even concept of biorefinery production is provided. Therefore, to my opinion the title is not appropriate. Please rephrase the title. Perhaps: Valorization of macuba (Acronia aculeata) for integrated production of lipase by Yarrowia lipolytica and biodiesel esters Or: Integrated production of lipase by Yarrowia lipolytica and biodiesel esters from macuba (Acronia aculeata).”
Answer: We kindly thank reviewer for this consideration. We rephrased the title to adequate it to the purpose of our work in lines 2 and 3.
Comment 2
Line 11: “alternative to what”
Answer: We thank reviewer for this questioning. We added the term “conventional chemical route” in lines 11 and 12.
Comment 3
Line 12: “application”
Answer: We thank reviewer for this comment. We added the term “application of commercial enzymes” in line 12.
Comment 4
Line 14: “Integration of what? Delete 'an integrated'
Answer: We thank reviewer for this suggestion. We deleted this term in line 13.
Comment 5
Line 24: “conversion to what”
Answer: We thank reviewer for this consideration. We added the term “to fatty acids” in line 23.
Comment 6
Line 79: “The sentence is not clear enough. Please rephrase. Perhaps: The integrated processes have a great potential for the biorefinery concept development which consists of full energy supply chain utilization.”
Answer: We thank reviewer for this comment. We added this phrase suggested by the reviewer in lines 80 and 81.
Comment 7
Line 103: “It would be nice to provide picture or drawing of this bioreactor, or provide more details such as diameter od dimensions.”
Answer: We thank reviewer for this suggestion. We added more information regarding the bioreactor in line 106.
Comment 8
Line 122: “Ash content of oilseed cakes?”
Answer: We thank reviewer for this questioning. We added the term “of oilseed cakes” in line 128.
Comment 9
Line 124: “of oilseed cakes”
Answer: We thank reviewer for this consideration. We added the term “of oilseed cakes” in line 131.
Comment 10
Line 138: “Please specify the amount of SFF medium”
Answer: We thank reviewer for this suggestion. We added the amount “(10 g)” in line 144.
Comment 11
Line 168: “Letters from the formula should be written in italics.”
Answer: We thank reviewer for this comment. We correct all the letters from formula to italic in lines 175, 176 and 178.
Comment 12
Line 182: “It is already stated in lines 179-180.”
Answer: We thank reviewer for this observation. We removed this sentence from line 188.
Comment 13
Line 187: “Please provide data about the shape of reactors (perhaps cilindric with flat bottom) and the material (glass, metal etc.)”
Answer: We thank reviewer for this suggestion. We added information regarding reactor shape in line 204.
Comment 14
Line 231: “'significant' or 'important' is more appropriate word”
Answer: We thank reviewer for this suggestion. We substitute it for the word “significant” in line 238.
Comment 15
Line 231: “add the first decimal 43.0”
Answer: We thank reviewer for this suggestion. We added this information in line 258.
Comment 16
Figure 1. “Figure quality should be improved. There is a yellow shadow, please improve the black-white contrast. Letters and numbers are not clear and are hard to read.”
Answer: We thank reviewer for this consideration. We improved the Figure 1 as requested.
Comment 17
Lines 464. “Add full expression, not only abbreviation. Please be aware that some readers will read only the concussion part of the paperwork”
Answer: We thank reviewer for this observation. We added full expression as requested in lines 471 and 472.
Comment 18
Line 464: “Specify what was exactly used as raw material.”
Answer: We thank reviewer for this observation. We added the term “macauba fruit cake” in line 471.
Comment 19
Line 468: “Please specify the term conversion. Which chemical is converted and what chemical is produced by oil hydrolysis?”
Answer: We thank reviewer for this comment. We added more information regarding each reaction step between lines 475 and 478.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn my opinion, the topic of the manuscript has the potential to fit within the scope of the journal. The use of enzymes for biodiesel production is attractive, especially nowadays. However, in my opinion, the manuscript requires some improvements, particularly in the introduction and the conclusion.
Line 13: I advise adding “…with the application of commercial enzymes.”
Line 37: After the sentence “…aminolysis [2,3].”, I advise adding a summary of different industrial sectors where lipases are used to give the reader a clear overview of the uses of lipases. I recommend writing, “For these reasons, lipases find application in several industries such as pharmaceuticals, fine chemicals, food industry, textile industry, paper sector and energy production.”
In order to support the sentence, I advise:
Tofani, G.; Petri, A.; Piccolo, O. Tetrahedron Asymmetry 2015, 26, 638–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tetasy.2015.04.009
Kumar A, Verma V, Dubey VK, Srivastava A, Garg SK, Singh VP and Arora PK (2023) Industrial applications of fungal lipases: a review. Front. Microbiol. 14:1142536. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1142536
Lines 43: Be consistent in the citation of the literature using the numbers of the authors' names. For example: (Hasan et al. 2006).
Line 109: I advise separating the experimental part of SSF, the statistical analysis and the analytical part, dividing them into three different headings: 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3.
Line 180: Is it possible to add a reference about the trimetric method?
Line 191: Attention on the use of subscript of H2O.
Line 462: In the conclusion, I advise the authors to take up the biorefinery concept again, writing about how these results fit into this topic. I also suggest adding a Biorefinery scheme where the approach reported in the manuscript is described.
Author Response
REVIEWER REPORT(S):
We appreciate editor and the reviewers’ comments, which have helped us to improve our work. We have carefully considered all the suggestions, addressing, and incorporating them in the manuscript as detailed below.
Answer to reviewer’s report for manuscript fermentation-2720706
Response to reviewer 2:
In my opinion, the topic of the manuscript has the potential to fit within the scope of the journal. The use of enzymes for biodiesel production is attractive, especially nowadays. However, in my opinion, the manuscript requires some improvements, particularly in the introduction and the conclusion.
Comment 1
Line 13: I advise adding “…with the application of commercial enzymes.”
Answer: We gratefully thank the reviewer for this consideration. We added this term in line 12.
Comment 2
Line 37: After the sentence “…aminolysis [2,3].”, I advise adding a summary of different industrial sectors where lipases are used to give the reader a clear overview of the uses of lipases. I recommend writing, “For these reasons, lipases find application in several industries such as pharmaceuticals, fine chemicals, food industry, textile industry, paper sector and energy production.”
In order to support the sentence, I advise:
Tofani, G.; Petri, A.; Piccolo, O. Tetrahedron Asymmetry 2015, 26, 638–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tetasy.2015.04.009
Kumar A, Verma V, Dubey VK, Srivastava A, Garg SK, Singh VP and Arora PK (2023) Industrial applications of fungal lipases: a review. Front. Microbiol. 14:1142536. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1142536
Answer: We kindly thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We included this sentence and the following references between lines 36-38.
Comment 3
Lines 43: Be consistent in the citation of the literature using the numbers of the authors' names. For example: (Hasan et al. 2006).
Answer: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We corrected this mistake in line 44.
Comment 4
Line 109: I advise separating the experimental part of SSF, the statistical analysis and the analytical part, dividing them into three different headings: 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3.
Answer: We gratefully thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We provided separated sections regarding it in lines 99, 113 and 126.
Comment 5
Line 180: Is it possible to add a reference about the trimetric method?
Answer: We gratefully thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We added a reference for this method in line 187.
Comment 6
Line 191: Attention on the use of subscript of H2O.
Answer: We kindly thank the reviewer for this observation. We corrected this error in lines 197 and 198.
Comment 7
Line 462: In the conclusion, I advise the authors to take up the biorefinery concept again, writing about how these results fit into this topic. I also suggest adding a Biorefinery scheme where the approach reported in the manuscript is described.
Answer: We kindly thank the reviewer for these suggestions. We included an integrative discussion regarding biorefinery and our results between lines 478 and 484. We did not include a scheme since reviewer one does not agree with this term in our research work.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors replied to all comments. I have one comment reported below:
Line 197: Check the formula of hydrate compounds. It is not MgSO4.7H2O but MgSO4Û°7H2O (see the comma between the sulfate and the water).
Author Response
Suggestion accepted, we apologize for this mistake. The sentence has been corrected as follows: "Na2HPO4⋅7H2O; MgSO4⋅7H2O; CaCl2⋅2H2O; FeCl3⋅6H2O; ZnSO4⋅7H2O; MnSO4⋅H2O"
