Kinetic and Thermodynamic Analysis of Fried Tilapia Fish Waste Pyrolysis for Biofuel Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments are placed in the attachments. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Answers are written in the file where I upload. Please check the uploaded file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article investigates the pyrolysis of fried tilapia fish waste as a sustainable biomass source, analyzed using thermogravimetric methods and four iso-conversional models to determine the kinetic and thermodynamic parameters of the process. The study demonstrated that these wastes can be efficiently converted into bio-oil, gas, and char, contributing to optimized waste management and energy recovery.

The paper is quite well written, however corrections should be made before publication. My detailed comments are listed below:

1. Abstract – line 23,24 – the study investigates the kinetics and thermodynamics of pyrolysis, not FTFW – it should be corrected
2. Line 44 – “in biofuel production” should be removed from this sentence
3. Line 77,78 – should be pyrolysis kinetics and thermodynamics
4. Table 1 – Ref should be given in the last column of the Table, and only reference numbers should be shown
5. Line 176 – should be: were utilized
6. The meanings of parameters of all described equations in section 3 should be explained in the text

Author Response

Answers are written in the file where I upload. Please check the uploaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript study about Pyrolysis of Fried Tilapia (Oreochromis Niloticus) Fish Waste: Determination Triplet Kinetics and Thermodynamics Parameters. The study employs multiple iso-conversational kinetic models and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) to determine the kinetic triplet and thermodynamic properties, contributing valuable insights into biomass utilization. Authors concluded the pyrolysis of fried tilapia fish waste (FTFW) and its potential as a sustainable biofuel source, paper can be accepted after major revision: some comments are given below:

1. The title can be more precise and engaging. Consider "Kinetic and Thermodynamic Analysis of Fried Tilapia Fish Waste Pyrolysis for Biofuel Production" to better reflect the study's scope.
2. Ensure consistency in terminology; for instance, "kinetic triplet parameters" should be clearly defined.
3. The introduction is well-structured but could benefit from a more precise research gap statement. Consider explicitly stating why FTFW is unique compared to other food waste.
4. The definition of pyrolysis in the introduction needs to be supported by appropriate references, the following papers are available for reference：10.13031/trans.12968; 10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.117001; 10.1038/s41598-020-65796-2.
5. The discussion on biofuels should focus more on waste-derived biofuels than general biofuel production.
6. The sample preparation section should specify whether the frying oil affects the pyrolysis reaction.
7. Justify why TGA experiments were conducted up to 700°C and why these heating rates were chosen (10, 15, and 20°C/min).
8. The description of kinetic models is somewhat repetitive; a concise summary with key equations in a table format would improve readability.
9. The activation energy (Ea) variation is well-discussed, but the impact of different fish waste compositions on the observed Ea fluctuations should be mentioned.
10. The reaction mechanism (f(α)) determination could benefit from discussing why the Šesták-Berggren and Snegirev models best fit the data.
11. The pre-exponential factor (A) discussion should clarify its physical significance in the pyrolysis of lipid-rich biomass.
12. The thermodynamic analysis should address the implications of Gibbs free energy (∆G) and entropy change (∆S) on process feasibility.
13. Table 4 compares activation energy values and should include statistical deviations to provide more credibility to the comparisons.
14. The conclusion should highlight practical applications of the findings, such as reactor design implications.
15. Discuss future research directions, including potential improvements in experimental design (e.g., studying different frying conditions).
16. There are several grammatical errors and awkward phrasings (e.g., "significant quantities of fried tilapia fish waste are generated" → "large quantities of fried tilapia fish waste are produced").

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Answers are written in the file where I upload. Please check the uploaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Accept