Effects of High Temperature & Pressure Pretreatment Process on Methane Production from Cyanobacteria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I am pleased to review the manuscript: Fermentation 2237509, by Sahan et al., titled " Effects of High Temperature & Pressure Pretreatment Process on Methane Production from Cyanobacteria".

In this manuscript, the authors explored the feasibility of using the cyanobacteria Desertifilum tharense for methane production. They isolated and characterized D.  tharense and then subjected it to a high temperature-pressure pretreatment process (HTPP). The authors provide groundbreaking data on cyanobacteria. However, the data from the HTPP assays were not suitable to increase methane production. The manuscript provides new information; I think that it is acceptable for publication but requires some modifications.

 

Major comments:

The authors describe the effect of HTPP in detail but could explain in greater depth the possible mechanisms of why it was not possible to obtain higher methane production. This is based on the fact that some measured variables indicated the possibility of achieving it. For example, the increase in soluble COD.

Minor comments:

I think the authors could discard the information in lines 74-76: “Physical, chemical, and biological pretreatment methods and their combinations can be used to disrupt the cell wall” or change it within lines 76-73.

In lines 123-127: correct the scientific name and put it in italics

In line 214: remove a period in “Us et al..[32]”

In line 373: remove a period in “(Figure 3 b.)”

In line 406: remove a period in “20 min. reaction”

In line 409: To indicate the year in bold

 

 

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewers for investing their valuable time in reviewing our article. We appreciate the reviewers' and editor's careful reading and helpful comments to help us improve this manuscript. Our responses to the reviewer’s questions can be found in attached file.  We have incorporated all the suggestions and comments from the reviewers and made amendments accordingly in the manuscript. The revised contents are highlighted with yellow colour in the manuscript and given in attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work "Effects of High Temperature & Pressure Pretreatment Process on Methane Production from Cyanobacteria" submitted for review concerns the possibility of pre-treatment of Desertifilum tharense cyanobacteria biomass as a substrate for a biogas plant in order to increase the production potential of biomethane. The introduction provides an interesting and appropriate background for further empirical research. The research methodology is appropriate, and the experiment is properly planned and conducted. The note concerns the modeling of the HTTP process. Is it reasonable to introduce test results from an experiment indicating that the THPP process does not lead to an increase in biomethane production from D. tharense algae as input data for building a model? In other words, shouldn't such a model be built on the basis of research results from an experiment confirming the effect of substrate pretreatment on increasing BMP? It would have utilitarian significance. The developed model, although interesting, is only a divagation. I suggest the authors to comment on these issues in the text of the manuscript. The authors should indicate conclusions for the future. What further research may imply the research results obtained in this work? Nevertheless, I believe that this work will be of interest to many readers and I recommend it, with minor revisions, for publication in the journal Fermentation.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewers for investing their valuable time in reviewing our article. We appreciate the reviewers' and editor's careful reading and helpful comments to help us improve this manuscript. Our responses to the reviewer’s questions can be found in attached file.  We have incorporated all the suggestions and comments from the reviewers and made amendments accordingly in the manuscript. The revised contents are highlighted with yellow colour in the manuscript and given in attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf