A Study of the Feasibility of Using Grey Sedge Residue to Facilitate Zero Waste Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled „A Study of the Feasibility of Using Grey Sedge Residue to Facilitate Zero Waste Production” describes a characteristic of grey sedge residue for potential utilization.

The idea of valorization and utilization of the by-products is very up-to-date and very important from an ecological point of view. However, I am not so sure if this work contributes to this field.

The introduction is written in a TV commercial type or the government promotion, but not a scientific paper. Many elements are more journalistic and not scientific should not be included here, e.g. lines 41-42, 34-36, etc. The scientific introduction should be very concise, containing only the information crucial for the work, introducing the research gap and presenting what was done so far in this field. This introduction does not contain any of these elements and is presented in one block without paragraphs. The whole into should be written again.

Introducing the whole governmental plan for ecology also is confusing here. The idea of replacing plastic bags is nobel but has nothing in common with this work. This should be removed. One sentence that the government is promoting eco-friendly solutions. is more than enough.

I do not understand why this type of valorization and these specific analyses were performed. The introduction should show that it is the best solution and the rationale for that. Here, I do not understand it still after reading the whole article.

Please divide the results section into subsections. Right now it is jumping from one topic to another.

The discussion is the weakest part. There is no discussion in a scientific manner. Discussion is not a summary of what was published around but it should purely discuss and explain the results obtained. Lines 190-209 do not contain the element of the discussion. From the whole section, the discussion is only in lines: 210-221; 222-223; 276-289; 301-303. The rest is just random information put together.

The article does not contain conclusions. I do not know what this section presents. A mixture of introduction and results but for sure not conclusions.

Minor:

All abbreviations in the abstract (and separately in the text) should be explained in the first use.

The texts should not repeat the values from tables. Please remove it.

Author Response

Dear the academic reviewer

Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. We have already reviewed as the attached file via this email.

With best regards

Kamonwan Chucheep

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

please find attached file for comments

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear the academic reviewer

Thank you very much for your comment and suggestion. I am attaching herewith the reviewed file via this email.

With best regards

Kamonwan Chucheep

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors applied all my suggestions and now the manuscript is much better. I do not have any further comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for all corrections