Monitoring Gas Emissions in Agricultural Productions through Low-Cost Technologies: The POREM (Poultry-Manure-Based Bio-Activator for Better Soil Management through Bioremediation) Project Experience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, the authors built a low cost device using low cost gas sensors to monitor gas emissions in the particular context of poultry manure. This work is extremely important in the current context of addressing climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions. Low cost nature of the device enables its extensive usage elsewhere.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English leaves much to be desired. The paper has to proofread by the English Language experts to make it more appealing to read. 

Author Response

Cooment 1: In this study, the authors built a low cost device using low cost gas sensors to monitor gas emissions in the particular context of poultry manure. This work is extremely important in the current context of addressing climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions. Low cost nature of the device enables its extensive usage elsewhere.

Response 1: dear reviewer, thank you for your comment.

Comment 2: The quality of English leaves much to be desired. The paper has to proofread by the English Language experts to make it more appealing to read.

response 2: dear reviewer, the co-author of this work, Dr. Francis Olawale Abulude, has been revised the document as you requested. Dr. Abulude is a nigerian professor, and therefore, an English native-speaker. He is also the first author of many articles published in several international peer-reviewed journals, as you can check in the Scopus database (atuhor ID: 7801409960). Thus, I think that a qualified revision has been performed as you asked.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

After reviewing the manuscript, my recommendations are:

1. The title is descriptive and informative for readers/researchers from the target audience of the academic environment or for a wider audience, familiar with this research field.

2. The abstract has a clear objective regarding the possibility of low-cost monitoring of gas emissions in the rural area. Information is provided about the importance of the experiment and how to implement it. The implications of the results for agricultural practices and environmental management are mentioned and also the conclusion of the study.

3. Keywords are useful for researchers and readers to identify the relevance of the field of study

4. It is recommended to organize the introduction into subsections for clarity. Briefly explain the potential limitations of LCS and LCAQM compared to traditional technology for a perspective of their applicability and efficiency. The objective of the research is clearly specified in the last paragraph of the introduction and the introduction provide sufficient background information for readers not in the immediate field to understand the problem.

5. The material and method section could benefit from more clarity for some phrases. Although details are provided regarding the selection and calibration of the sensors, it is indicated to complete the data regarding the methodology and data analysis for greater scientific rigor. The figures complete the data, having an important role in understanding the text.

The methods used are generally adequate for the purpose of the research regarding the monitoring of gas emissions from poultry litter that was previously stored in compliance with the conditions to avoid environmental pollution. The selection of sensors is suitable for the rural location, as is their calibration for precise measurements. Linear regression is suitable for the measurements required for the study. Monitoring the environment with the help of sensors, from a distance, and connecting to remote control devices, is suitable for evaluating the parameters that influence gas emissions from poultry litter. A more detailed methodology regarding the experimental setup would improve clarity for readers.

There is enough information for a researcher to reproduce the experiment: context, location, environmental conditions, instruments, sensors, calibration, reasons for selection, environmental monitoring, communication protocol and references to previous publications.

The experiment performed was well documented and treated comprehensively.

6. The results section is well structured, the sensor calibration is clearly described in detail. Figures and tables contribute to understanding the responses of sensors to different gas concentrations (calibration data for sensors, calibration results, monitoring duration, trends in the evolution of gas concentrations. The comparative analysis contributes to understanding the performance of monitoring systems and the dynamics of the environment. There are no duplicate data from figures or tables in the text. There are no duplicate data from figures or tables in the text.

7. The discussions approach the topic of the research in the context of the existing literature. A detailed analysis of gas emissions is made. Of course, comparative discussions with various similar studies can be added, but what the authors offer is representative of the research carried out.

8. The conclusions of the research are supported by the results, but to strengthen the statements, more accurate evidence for the calibration process and the mention of the comparative analysis with previous results or future research can be mentioned.

9. The cited literature covers a wide range of studies and articles, including very recent ones, relevant to the study.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1. The title is descriptive and informative for readers/researchers from the target audience of the academic environment or for a wider audience, 
familiar with this research field

Response 1. thank you for the comment.

Comment 2. The abstract has a clear objective regarding the possibility of low-cost monitoring of gas emissions in the rural area. Information is provided 
about the importance of the experiment and how to implement it. The implications of the results for agricultural practices and environmental management are 
mentioned and also the conclusion of the study.

Response 2. thank you for the comment.

Comment 3. Keywords are useful for researchers and readers to identify the relevance of the field of study

Response 3. thank you for the comment.

Comment 4. It is recommended to organize the introduction into subsections for clarity. Briefly explain the potential limitations of LCS and LCAQM compared 
to traditional technology for a perspective of their applicability and efficiency. The objective of the research is clearly specified in the last paragraph 
of the introduction and the introduction provide sufficient background information for readers not in the immediate field to understand the problem

Response 4. dear reviewer, thank you for your comment. I have splitted the introduction into two subsections as you indicated. The first one titled as "The 
limits and the potentialities of LCSs" exposes the main issues affecting LCS performance and their potentialities. The second one titled as "The aim and the 
focus of this work" explain the goals of this work as you suggested.

Comment 5. The material and method section could benefit from more clarity for some phrases. Although details are provided regarding the selection and 
calibration of the sensors, it is indicated to complete the data regarding the methodology and data analysis for greater scientific rigor. The figures 
complete the data, having an important role in understanding the text...A more detailed methodology regarding the experimental setup would improve clarity 
for readers...

Response 5. dear reviewer, I did my best to follow your indications. I added more information regarding the calibration performed in the laboratory and the 
experimental setup. Moreover, I have corrected the document as you indicated in the comments present in the pdf file "earth-3151596-review.pdf" you sent.

Comment 6. The results section is well structured, the sensor calibration is clearly described in detail. Figures and tables contribute to understanding the 
responses of sensors to different gas concentrations (calibration data for sensors, calibration results, monitoring duration, trends in the evolution of gas 
concentrations. The comparative analysis contributes to understanding the performance of monitoring systems and the dynamics of the environment. There are no 
duplicate data from figures or tables in the text. There are no duplicate data from figures or tables in the text.

Response 6. thank you for the comment

Comment 7. The discussions approach the topic of the research in the context of the existing literature. A detailed analysis of gas emissions is made. Of 
course, comparative discussions with various similar studies can be added, but what the authors offer is representative of the research carried out

Response 7. dear reviewer, a comparative discussion with similar provious studies is already present in the discussion section. As already remarked in the 
document, there are few studies on this topic and, moreover, they were not performed in the same conditions of the present research. You must also consider 
that in the other cases, different gases were monitored or different instruments were used. This results in an unique previous work with which is possible or 
useful making a comparison (D'Urso et al), and as matter of fact, it has been carried out and already exposed in the discussion section.

Comment 8. The conclusions of the research are supported by the results, but to strengthen the statements, more accurate evidence for the calibration process 
and the mention of the comparative analysis with previous results or future research can be mentioned.

Response 8. dear reviewer, thank you for your comment. I added both the elements you suggested in the conclusion section.

Comment 9. The cited literature covers a wide range of studies and articles, including very recent ones, relevant to the study

Response 9. thank you for your comment.