Evaluation of Aging Methods on the Surface Characteristics of Hydrochar and Germination Indices for Kale Seeds
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper submitted to the Journal fits within the general scope of Horticulturae MDPI. The authors conducted a very bice experiment the experimental design the analysis, interpretation, and conclusion sounds. However, I have some minor comments/suggestions before accepting the paper for publication in Horticulturae MDPI:
1) I suggest the authors report the differences between treatments in percentage in the abstract section in order to be clearer for the readers.
2) the hypothesis in the introduction section is missing. The authors should clearly state how their work goes beyond the state of arts and what is the novel aspect of this research.
3) I urge the authors to split the results and discussion in order to avoid redundancy.
4) The conclusion section should be re -written
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We appreciate your comments. The comments improved the quality of my article. We revised the article based on your comments. We hope it will be satisfactory for you.
1) I suggest the authors report the differences between treatments in percentage in the abstract section in order to be clearer for the readers.
Response:
Thank you for the comments and suggestions. These have helped us to improve the quality of our paper. We appreciate it.
As suggested by the reviewer, percentage changes between treatments have been added in the abstract part (lines 18-25).
2) the hypothesis in the introduction section is missing. The authors should clearly state how their work goes beyond the state of arts and what is the novel aspect of this research.
Response:
Thank you for the comments and suggestions. These have helped us to improve the quality of our paper. We really appreciate it.
As suggested by the reviewer, the hypothesis and novel aspect were added in lines 96-100.
3) I urge the authors to split the results and discussion in order to avoid redundancy.
Response:
Thank you for your comment, we have separated the results and discussion parts, as you suggested.
4) The conclusion section should be re -written
Response:
Thank you for your comment. Based on your suggestion, we have re-written the conclusion section (lines 479-499).
best regards
Reviewer 2 Report
Attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We appreciate your comments. The comments improved the quality of my article. We revised the article based on your comments. We hope it will be satisfactory for you.
1) I can understand the author's point, but the title seems a bit confusing. please revise it.
Response:
As suggested by the reviewer, the title has been changed in lines 2-3.
“Evaluation of aging methods on the surface characteristics of hydrochar and germination indices for kale seeds”.
2) Line 38, “biochar” should be “hydrochar”.
Response:
Thank you for your comment. However, I would like to clarify that, technically, hydrochar is different from biochar, based on the production process (References 5 to 7). Therefore, we can not to replace the word “biochar” with “hydrochar”.
3) Line 84-87, this paragraph is too short, and the content is too brief. The authors should give more specific information about this study.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
The re-written content is as follows: To obtain better properties of hydrochar and facilitate its application in horticultural production. This study aims to ascertain the effect of three pre-treatment methods (water washing, microbial aging and freezing-thawing aging) on the surface structure and the physicochemical properties of fresh hydrochar produced from coffee (Coffea arabica) grounds, as well as the effects of these aging methods on kale seed germination and root development.
4) Generally speaking, chapter 2 is Materials and Methods, and chapter 3 is Results and Discussion. In this paper, chapter 2 is Results and Discussion, and chapter 3 is Materials and Methods. What is the reason?
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
As suggested by the reviewer, The order of the material and methods part and the results and discussion part has been modified. Now, chapter 2 is the Material and Methods, chapter 3 is the Results, and Chapter 4 is the Discussion.
5) The authors conducted a large number of effect assessments. This indicates that hydrochar does work. However, the properties of hydrochar have only been analyzed by FTIR and SEM, and comparisons with other studies are inadequate. What properties of hydrochar do work needs to be further discussed and illustrated in the context of the relevant literature (e.g., Nat. Commun., 2022, 13, 3616; Green Energy Environ., 2023, DOI: 10.1016/j.gee.2023.01.001; J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis, 2022, 166, 105627), which is important to improve the quality of research.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
In this study, the physical properties of hydrochar (bulk density, porosity, and water-holding capacity) were evaluated. Additionally, the chemical properties of hydrochar (pH, EC, salinity, and TDS) were tested, and SEM, FTIR, and BET were used to investigate the surface morphology of hydrochar. This study focused on the changes in the physical and chemical properties of hydrochar after aging and whether it can be used as a soil amendment. Further analysis of hydrochar properties will help us better understand the changes that occur after modification (this project is in progress in our lab and will be published soon). Thank you again for the suggestion, and I have included the relevant analysis that needs to be done in the conclusion and recommendation section, lines 494-495
6) The discussion and research on hydrochar are also important for the mechanism. The authors may consider adding some related contents to further deepen the study.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
The aging mechanism has been added in lines 457-464.
Best regards
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an interesting manuscript with a practical application. The study is conducted well and the writing is easy to follow. Unfortunately this is not really a horticulture article as written. In fact, there is no horticulture at all in the Introduction and only a small percentage of the Results & Discussion. I believe the manuscript belongs in one of the other MDPI journals such as Biology.
The format of the manuscript is not correct for Horticulturae. The Materials and Methods section should follow the Introduction.
The combination of Results with Discussion is ok, but not if a general synthesis of a discussion is missing as a result. All of the citations in the Results & Discussion section simply compare the current findings to the literature. If the two sections remain as one section, then a closing sub-section in which the take-home message is synthesize and placed into the existing literature is required.
Line 3. Replace “on” with “and”
Line 17. General statements like this are inappropriate in an abstract. What is meant by enhancement of the surface morphology? The reader does not understand that.
Line 18-19. The same goes for “physical properties” being “slightly inferior”. What is inferior? Describe those properties in the abstract.
Lines 32-87. If the manuscript is re-submitted, the introduction must contain a horticulture component.
Lines 90-91. The first two sentences can be deleted without loss of meaning.
Line 171. The figure title does not indicate means separation letters. This must be added. Such as the sentence in Line 238.
Line 178. Something is wrong with the units. Delete % maybe?
Line 249. I believe this is Fig. 5b-d, not Fig. 1.
Line 311. “…compost was purchased…”
Line 316. Add city, state, country.
Line 318. Suggest “The sealed reactor was positioned into the autoclave…”
Figures 1,3,5,6. The curve showing the percentage change does not need to have the text indicating the percentage for each marker. This is double-reporting the data. The reader can look at the right vertical axis and each marker, there is no need to add the text of each percentage.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We appreciate your comments. The comments improved the quality of my article. We revised the article based on your comments. We hope it will be satisfactory for you.
1) This is an interesting manuscript with a practical application. The study is conducted well and the writing is easy to follow. Unfortunately this is not really a horticulture article as written. In fact, there is no horticulture at all in the Introduction and only a small percentage of the Results & Discussion. I believe the manuscript belongs in one of the other MDPI journals such as Biology.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
The horticulture content has been added in lines 34-43.
2) The format of the manuscript is not correct for Horticulturae. The Materials and Methods section should follow the Introduction.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
As suggested by reviewer, the Material and Methods section is now presented as chapter 2, while the Results are presented as chapter 3, and the Discussion as chapter 4.
3) The combination of Results with Discussion is ok, but not if a general synthesis of a discussion is missing as a result. All of the citations in the Results & Discussion section simply compare the current findings to the literature. If the two sections remain as one section, then a closing sub-section in which the take-home message is synthesize and placed into the existing literature is required.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
As suggested by reviewer, we have split the Results and Discussion into separate sections.
4) Line 3. Replace “on” with “and”
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
The title has been changed.
5) Line 17. General statements like this are inappropriate in an abstract. What is meant by enhancement of the surface morphology? The reader does not understand that.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
I have revised the abstract and added detailed information regarding the changes in surface morphology parameters in lines 17-25.
6) Line 18-19. The same goes for “physical properties” being “slightly inferior”. What is inferior? Describe those properties in the abstract.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
I have revised the abstract as suggested. In the new version, I emphasized the changes in the material properties of MHC that showed the largest differences. The results of SEM, BET, and FTIR are presented in lines 21-26 to illustrate the changes in the surface morphology of the hydrochars.
7) Lines 32-87. If the manuscript is re-submitted, the introduction must contain a horticulture component.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
The horticulture content has been added in lines 34-43.
8) Lines 90-91. The first two sentences can be deleted without loss of meaning.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
As suggested by reviewer, the sentences have been deleted.
9) Line 171. The figure title does not indicate means separation letters. This must be added. Such as the sentence in Line 238.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
The means of separation letters have been added (lines 295-296).
10) Line 178. Something is wrong with the units. Delete % maybe?
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
The units (%) has been deleted.
11) Line 249. I believe this is Fig. 5b-d, not Fig. 1.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
The Fig. 1 has been changed to Fig. 5d-d.
12) Line 311. “…compost was purchased…”
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
I have added ‘was” in line 114.
13) Line 316. Add city, state, country.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
The city, state, country have been added.
(Moline, Illinois, USA)
14) Line 318. Suggest “The sealed reactor was positioned into the autoclave…”
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
As suggested by reviewer, the sentence has been revised in lines 121-122.
15) Figures 1,3,5,6. The curve showing the percentage change does not need to have the text indicating the percentage for each marker. This is double-reporting the data. The reader can look at the right vertical axis and each marker, there is no need to add the text of each percentage.
Response:
Thank you for your comment.
The curved line has been deleted in all graphs.
Best regards
Reviewer 4 Report
The study investigated the effects of aging processes on coffee ground hydrochar and its impact on kale seed germination and seedling growth components. Four different aging processes were used, namely fresh hydrochar (FHC), water-washed hydrochar (WHC), microbial aged hydrochar (MHC), and freezing-thawing aged hydrochar (FTHC). The results showed that MHC and FTHC had more oxygen-containing groups and enhanced surface morphology, with MHC having the highest levels of nitrogen and oxygen. It seems that the current paper is very interesting, but there are a few things that need to be improved before it can be published.
-
First I would like to point out that the abstract needs to be improved and contains a few of the major findings. Furthermore, the last paragraph should be made more novel by the introduction.
-
In the materials and methods section, eqations need to be numbered and properly refered in the text according to the template.
-
Figure 1, 3, 5 and 6 have small letters difficult to read.
-
There is a problem with the presentation of the SEM images in the text; they are too small and difficult to view. Please revise accordingly.
-
The conclusion section needs to be improved.
Based on the above, the paper needs major revision.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We appreciate your comments. The comments improved the quality of my article. We revised the article based on your comments. We hope it will be satisfactory for you.
The study investigated the effects of aging processes on coffee ground hydrochar and its impact on kale seed germination and seedling growth components. Four different aging processes were used, namely fresh hydrochar (FHC), water-washed hydrochar (WHC), microbial aged hydrochar (MHC), and freezing-thawing aged hydrochar (FTHC). The results showed that MHC and FTHC had more oxygen-containing groups and enhanced surface morphology, with MHC having the highest levels of nitrogen and oxygen. It seems that the current paper is very interesting, but there are a few things that need to be improved before it can be published.
First I would like to point out that the abstract needs to be improved and contains a few of the major findings. Furthermore, the last paragraph should be made more novel by the introduction.
Thanks for your comment, we added novel of the study in abstract line 27-31.
In the materials and methods section, eqations need to be numbered and properly refered in the text according to the template.
Thanks for your comment; we revised our article based on your comment.
Figure 1, 3, 5 and 6 have small letters difficult to read.
Thanks for your comment; we revised our article based on your comment.
There is a problem with the presentation of the SEM images in the text; they are too small and difficult to view. Please revise accordingly.
Thanks for your comment; we revised our article based on your comment.
The conclusion section needs to be improved.
Thanks for your comment; we revised our article based on your comment.
Based on the above, the paper needs major revision.
We appreciate your comment. We hope the revision will be satisfactory for you.
Best regards
Reviewer 5 Report
Authors did a study on "Kale Seed Germination and Seedling Growth are affected by different Methods Used to Age Hydrochar" Overall, this study is well-written and can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We appreciate your comments.
best regards
Reviewer 6 Report
Manuscript has significant to specific area, objective has been planned and performed finely. I have concern regarding quality of figures that must be improved. In addition to this letter of significant assign to each bar should be checked once. Letter of significance asigned in table 2 should be uniformely presented as it appears randomly. Discussion section should be supported with few more specific and recent references.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We appreciate your comments. The comments improved the quality of my article. We revised the article based on your comments. We hope it will be satisfactory for you.
Manuscript has significant to specific area, objective has been planned and performed finely. I have concern regarding quality of figures that must be improved. In addition to this letter of significant assign to each bar should be checked once. Letter of significance asigned in table 2 should be uniformely presented as it appears randomly. Discussion section should be supported with few more specific and recent references.
Based on your comments, we revised the figures, table 2, and the discussion; We hope it will be satisfactory for you.
We appreciate your comments.
Best regards
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The revision has adequately addressed all of my concerns. Just a few mistakes need to be edited.
Lines 16-152. All of the binomials need to be italicized.
Line 446. Delete one of the “Explanation”s.
Lines 411-627. There are several font size mistakes. Please be sure the figure caption is 9 point and the entire Discussion section is 10 point.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
many thanks for your comments. your comments improved the quality of our article.
We revised the article based on your comments and we hope it will be satisfactory for you.
The revision has adequately addressed all of my concerns. Just a few mistakes need to be edited.
Lines 16-152. All of the binomials need to be italicized.
We revised the article based on your comment. thank you for your comment.
Line 446. Delete one of the “Explanation”s.
we appreciate it. We revised the article based on your comment.
Lines 411-627. There are several font size mistakes. Please be sure the figure caption is 9 point and the entire Discussion section is 10 point.
We revised them—many thanks for your comment.
We appreciate you.
Best regards
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have implemented my suggestions and answered all the comments. This study should be accepted in its present form.
