Biodegradation Studies of Biobased Mulch Films Reinforced with Cellulose from Waste Mango
, Silvia Maribel Contreras Ramos 1, Glenda Pacheco Vargas 2 and Edgar GarcÃa Hernández 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper entitled: “ Effects of Biodegradation of Biobased Mulch Films Reinforced 2 with Cellulose from Waste Mango” analyses an importan aspect of the material science field.
The paperi s not well written, report only 5 figure and the biodegradation really is analysed only after 25 days and the characterization results are reported in a generic manner and the novelty is not well explained. I suggest Majior Revision.
Detailed Comments
It is not clearly explained in the abstract if the material analyzed is a combination con GC, Chitosan and cellulose, or not. I suggest to rewrite the abstract in order to clarify this point.
I suggest to clarify in the Introduction Section the difference between biopolymers and biodegradable polymers.
Biodegradation studies: it is not clearly explained if the humidity of 57% was maintained and how, please explained well and add if occurred.
TABLE 2: write the measurements in mg
Table 2: please introduce the standard errors in the percentage weight losses, furthermore explained how much replicates did you selected in the experimental design.
Figure 3: I suggest to add high resolution images, furthermore optical images at lower resolution can be useful to analyze the visual aspect of biodegradation.
Figure 3: check the scalebar and report in the same way in all images.
“Figure 4. FTIR spectra of GC mulch film at different times of biodegradation test (0 days and 25 days).”: Modify the Caption of the Figure 4, since the authors reported only one time of the biodegradation (25 days). The Reviewer suggest to justify this choise and in general add another time.
Figure 5: it is not clearly analysed the comparation between the two spectra. I suggest to compare by
Figure 5: check the x-axys: Wavenumber [cm-1]
Infrared spectroscopy: explain well this section
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsYou present an interesting and important work, regarding the natural degradation of biobased mulch films in soils.
Nonethless the paper needs discussion, and also I have some questions regarding the methods in the experiment.
For example, how did you analyze by SEM the samples at 25 days? Did you removed and then returned to the soils or these were differente fragements?
Also, in figures 4 and 5 you say 25 days, but then in the text when you comment the same figures you say 30 days, or even in the begging you say that FTIR analyzes were made before an at the end of experiment, so should be 70 days?
Figure 3 needs to have visible scale bars, and also the six images should have similar zoom or scales so the readers can compare them.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is okay.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1 Lines 99-100, “the samples were weighed at 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 and 70 days of degradation”, but no results at 70 days were shown in Table 2.
2 Lines 147-148, “After 20 days of exposure, GC… showed a weight loss of 65% …”, but it is recorded as 68% for GC in Table 2.
3 Lines 148-149, “at the end of 30 days, GC showed 90% weight loss, …”, but this conclusion can not be evidenced in Table 2.
4 No result at the end of 70 days has been demonstrated in Table 2, it can be learnt from line 150 that, the weight loss of ChC until day 70 is 96%, meaning that, ChC is not degraded completely at this time.
5 It is depicted in abstract that, GC sample presented a biodegradability of 97% at 30 days, and ChC lost 95% of its weight after 70 days exposed to soil, but the corresponding weight losses were 90% in line 149 and 96% in line 150, respectively.
6 For practical application, the mulch should have moderate mechanical properties, such as its breaking force and elongation at break. These data should be added in the manuscript.
7 Is there any effect of the mulch degradation on the characteristics of the soil? If the soil environment was changed because of the mulch degradation, whether it's helpful for the growth of the plant?
8 There are some possible linguistic and grammatical errors in the article, please confirm whether the spelling is right, (1) “Initial weigth” in Table 2; (2) “were carry out” in line 172.
9 The contrast and clarity of the photos in Figure 3 are insufficient.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research provides important information, but I suggest taking the following into account:
1- Soil samples Table 1 should be analyzed for their content of elements and heavy elements because of their direct impact on the extent of decomposition, and they are among the most important objectives of this research.
2- Abbreviations should be defined in the research, such as PM.
3- The gelatin (GC) abbreviation is incorrect and should be modified.
4- The research should be reviewed in terms of the English language, especially the conclusions part.
Comments on the Quality of English Language4- The research should be reviewed in terms of the English language, especially the conclusions part.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper was modified according the Reviewer suggestion.
However I suggest further modifications
TITLE: does not describe well the result of the paper, I suggest to change the title in: “Biodegradation studies of Biobased Mulch Films Reinforced 2 with Cellulose from Waste Mango”
Table 2: write the error and the measurements accordingly, i.e. Line2 now is: 0.0359 ± 0.34, modify in: 0.04 ± 0.34
Furthermore the reported errors are very high related to the measurements, please check and justify.
Figure 6: I suggest to intriduce another intermediate time, i.e.: 14 days
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI thank the authors for making the proposed modifications.
They had into account all the comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
