The Preparation Processes and Influencing Factors of Biofuel Production from Kitchen Waste

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript no “Fermentation-2232085” entitled “The Preparation Processes and Influencing Factors of Biofuel 2 Production from Kitchen Waste” for publication in MDPI Fermentation. This review article provides the compilation of information on production of biofuel from the kitchen waste and how the various factors influence the productivity and yield. It's indeed a comprehensive analysis of various factors for transformation of kitchen waste into biofuel. The idea of this article is good, and the compilation of results is informative for the readers. According to the reviewer opinion this review article is suitable for publishing in this journal with minor revision. Author should make the following corrections before it is accepted for publication:

Comments:

1.      Abstract need to strengthen with more concrete and scientific statements

2.      Page 1 Line 22:…………..especial petroleum products …………..line need to reframed

3.      Page 1 Line 43-44: Line need to reframed to make it more clear

4.      Page 2 Line 47-48: Need to add more recent references like ……

5.      Page 1 Line 43-44: Nitrogen is an element not a mineral so better to change the phrase N-mineral with relevant word wherever possible  

6.      Page 4 Line 104-123: Please add more relevant reference to these paragraphs like………….https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-020-10137-4

Page 8 Line 259-274: Add relevant references to this paragraph………….. Bhatt AK, Bhatia RK, Thakur S, Rana N, Sharma V, Rathour RK (2018) Fuel from Waste: A Review on Scientific Solution for Waste Management and Environment Conservation. Prospects of Alternative Transportation Fuels. pp 205-233.

7.      Page 8 Line 277-280: Add relevant reference to this statement…………….https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.10.042

8.    Page 9 Line 384-391: Add more recent and relevant reference to this paragraph………  https://doi.org/10.1002/er.4180

9.    Page 12 Line 418-434: Add relevant references to these paragraphs

10.  Page13 Line  447-460: Support these statements with relevant references

11.   Page 13 491-513: Please add more recent and relevant references……… https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.119117

12.  Page 14-15 Section 4.4 need to update with more recent data along with their comparative analysis

13.  Conclusion need to be rewritten to make it more strong for better readership

 

Overall, there are also some issues with the grammar and organization of some references in the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Fermentation
The Preparation Processes and Influencing Factors of Biofuel Production from Kitchen Waste

The manuscript is of general interest. The following comments should help further improve the quality of the work:

1-The manuscript should be improved in terms of the usage of English. There are plenty of grammatical and syntax errors as well as badly constructed sentences. Authors are advised to get their manuscript edited by a native English speaker or by a Professional English Editing Service.
2-Up to 6 Keywords are allowed; there are currently 9 Keywords.
3-Abstract is too brief and should be expanded by including the major conclusions drawn from this review work.
4-Please avoid the usage of first-person pronouns (e.g., we and our).
5-Producing higher-generation biofuels vs first-generation biofuels using advanced platforms, including those based on food wastes, is also highly advantageous given the current challenges faced in the world, especially the Ukraine-Russia war and its unfavorable effects on fuel and energy supply chain, as elaborated in a recent work, “The imbalance of food and biofuel markets amid Ukraine-Russia crisis: A systems thinking perspective”. Authors can consider using such work, but not limited to that, to highlight the significant role of food waste-derived biofuels given the recent developments in the world, which also undermines the importance of the present work.
6-Please include a Table of Abbreviations/Nomenclatures.
7-The novelty/originality of the paper should be more effectively established.
8-The caption of Figure 1 seems missing.
9-Please do not repeat units where not needed, like in “120 °C, 140 °C, 160 °C” which could be presented as “120, 140, and 160 °C”. This comment applies to figures and tables too.
10-LHV stands for “Lower heating value” and not “Lower heat value”. Please correct this.
11-When presenting scientific names, “sp.” And “spp.” should not be italicized. Only genus and species names should be in italics. Please get this issue fixed throughout the manuscript.
12-Latest works and trends of various conversion platforms should be discussed by including the latest reviews in this respective domain. Here are some examples which, if found useful by the authors, can be used: “Oxidative torrefaction and torrefaction-based biorefining of biomass: A critical review”, “Managing the hazardous waste cooking oil by conversion into bioenergy through the application of waste-derived green catalysts: A review”, etc.
13-Please discuss the techno-economic and environmental aspects of biofuel production from kitchen waste as well. This should increase the interest of the scientific community in the present work.
14-The manuscript is visually poor. In the current version, there is only one figure. Authors are strongly advised to develop a reasonable number of graphically appealing original figures to support the contents presented in various sections of the manuscript. It is also possible to borrow some figures from the literature provided that the necessary copyright permissions are obtained.
15-Please reduce the significant figures of the reported data to four. Here`s an example of significant figures (sig figs):
- 10082 (5 sig figs)
- 70,000 (1 sig fig)
- 0.0025 (2 sig figs)
- 0.000309 (3 sig figs)
- 50010.000 (8 sig figs)
- 0.0040030 (5 sig figs)
16-In various sections, the authors should tabulate the numerical findings of the published research works instead of listing these values throughout the text. Having tabulated these, the main results should be discussed in the text.
17-Please discuss the practical and policy implications of the present review.
18-The writing style needs improvements. Please avoid starting a paragraph with the name of authors like “Shi et al. (2017) adopted the saccharification liquid of kitchen waste…”. Instead, please try to discuss concepts critically and use examples of previous works for further clarification and to facilitate the understanding of the topic for the readers.
19-Please change "5. Conclusions" to "5. Conclusions and future directions". Accordingly, please elaborate on the future research needs in this domain.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf