Characteristics of Soil Amendment Material from Food Waste Disposed of in Bioplastic Bags

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors tried to investigate the effects of bioplastic bags on composting of food waste. Some interesting information may be reported, but major revision is needed for the present version. The following comments may help the authors improve the paper.

1. The title is confusing, please improve.

2. The introduction part is so poor. The authors should pay more attention on the background of the effects of plastic on composting, the content of plastic in food waste, and how to treat plastic in food waste. Then the key issue can be concluded.

3. Little information on plastic has been showed in results part.

4. The references are not all English publications.

 

Author Response

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewed article is interesting and raises current issues related to waste management, in this case food waste. Despite this, I believe that a few corrections should be made to the article before it can be published in Fermentation. Below are both general and more specific comments.

1. References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text.

2. Line 41 - reference to literature is needed

3. Lines 66-89 - I think this should go to the Methodology chapter

4.  There is no information on the number of inhabitants.

5.  Line 101 - Why were these floors chosen?

6.  Lines 77-78 and 115-116 - Which waste category names are correct?

7.  Lines 120-122 - The sentence is unclear. What does 4°C mean?

8. Line 126 - I don't think the term "soil amendment" should be used here anymore. It is not yet known whether the tested material will be such.

9. Line 130 - Please explain what cow dung is for. Why was such a quantitative ratio adopted?

10.Lines 147-148 - You did not compost the soil amendment, only food waste. Only after composting it will turn out whether it can be a soil amendment. This remark concerns the use of the term "soil amendment" later in the manuscript, e.g., in line 230 or 247 or 276

11.Line 140 - How was moisture determined? There is also no information on the water content in the individual components of the composted mixture. Based on what data water was added to achieve a moisture content of 40%.

12.Line 144 - It is necessary to specify again what type of bioplastic was used in the research. As can be seen from the information presented in lines 48-50, it can be very diverse.

13.Lines 156-159 - The measurement was made immediately after the extracts were prepared, or after some time? Where did the methodology come from?

14.Lines 161-171 - Please provide the source of the method used.

15.Lines 173-175 - Please provide the name of the device and manufacturer.

16.Lines 177-185 - Please provide the source of the method used.

17.Line 190 - Please specify the name and manufacturer of the spectrometer.

18.Lines 190-192 - This sentence is unclear. Where did the reference material come from?

19. Lines 210-211 - Do these waste types refer to the categories of lines 77-78 and 115-116? Why are there three different names?

20. Line 214 - Where would these "incinerable waste" be incinerated?

21.Table 2 - Please check again the results for phosphorus and potassium. Standard deviation for potassium, with results of 5-6 thousand of ppm looks very small.

22.Line 251 - Please remove "the".

23.Lines 258-261 - Please explain what it is about these bags, that they can be treated as soil amendments. How will they improve soil quality?

24.Figure 4 - Please explain the meaning of the gray line in the graph in English.

25.Lines 282-283 - No reference to any source. Besides, what is this pH range for? For soil or bioplastics to be added to the soil?

26.Figure 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 - It seems to me that these numbers in the graphs are unnecessary. You write about them in the text.

27.Figure 9, 10 - Please remove two decimal places on the vertical axis.

28.Line 363 - We have the "available" and "unavailable" categories again.

29.Lines 372-374 - I propose to show these standard values and those obtained by you, so that the reader can see it. Maybe in the form of a table.

30.Lines 390-393 - Comment as above.

31.Items 20-26 in the list of references - Please provide English titles, possibly a translation into English.

32.Lines 394 and 409 - In line 394 you refer to item 23, and in line 409 to item 22, while in both cases you state that they are Department of Agriculture standards.

33.Line 417 - The statement "other studies" suggests more than just item 15.

34.Lines 422-425 - This sentence requires support in the literature.

35.Line 439 - Change TNK to TKN.

36.Conclusions - It seems to me that the authors should explain more in the earlier parts of the manuscript why, in their opinion, composted food waste collected in bags made of bioplastics can be composted and later treated as a soil conditioner. How to combine 45 days of composting with the 3-4 months needed to decompose bioplastic. How to do it practically? I think the discussion can be extended to this issue.

Author Response

Dear the Reviewer,

Thank you very much. We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on my manuscript. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the you. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript. Here is a point-by-point response to the your comments and concerns (details in attached file).

In addition to the above comments, all errors pointed out by you have been corrected.

We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.

Sincerely,
Nuta Supakata

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Unfortunately, the authors have not done a good job during revision stage. So,  this paper may not be accepted. 

Author Response

In attached file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe that the article has been almost completely revised in terms of content. I only have a comment regarding the response to my comment 23. I understand the bags will break down, but why would they become soil amendments. In addition, in line 270 (new version of the text) you state that "Bioplastic bags used in this study were produced by cassava starch that can be biodegraded within 3-4 months", while in response to my comment No. 35 you write that " According to Wahyuningtiyas and Suryanto, the decomposition duration of bioplastic cassava starch was 12 days.” Why such a difference? Please explain it in the text.

While improving the text, there were a few additional things to improve:

- there are too many spaces in several places, e.g. on line 262.

- you also need to correct the text in line 70 and in subsection 2.9.

I believe that after these few corrections and additions, the article can be published in Fermentation.

Author Response

In attached file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Accepted