Chemo-Sonic Pretreatment Approach on Marine Macroalgae for Energy Efficient Biohydrogen Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Chemo-sonic pretreatment approach on marine kelp for energy efficient biohydrogen production

The authors produced biohydrogen from marine kelp that was pretreated through chemo-sonic technique. The marine kelp was subjected to anaerobic fermentation to produce biohydrogen.

 

In my view, the article was well written and contributes to efforts at producing sustainable fuel to replace fossil-based fuels. The article will be of interest to postgraduate students and researchers in renewable energy space. The authors should carefully edit the article to correct some of the language errors.

 

The underlisted suggestion will improve the standard of the article, if implemented.

 

Abstract

Vital information such as study aim, objectives, and areas of application of the research outcome are missing in the abstract. The SE in Ln 22 should be deleted

Introduction

The motivation for the study, research question, aim, objectives, and scope should be clearly stated. The possible areas of application of the study outcomes should be enumerated.

The authors can include data of global production of biohydrogen and market value in (USD) for the past 10 years can be presented in charts to show the trend of biohydrogen production. This will make the introduction more interesting to read.

 

Material and Method

Ln 89 .  Correct the spelling of Sonic Solubiization

Ln 95. 10%-90% should read 10-90 %

Results and Discussion

This section looks good except some minor language error.

 

Conclusion

The conclusion fell short of what is expected. The section is supposed to give and overview of the entire research. The results were not well captured. The authors should add possible areas of application. The authors should make appropriate recommendations and suggest areas of further research.

The challenges encountered during the research should be included to aid reproducibility.

If the suggestions are implemented, the article should be considered for publication in Sustainability 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Reviewer 2 Report

This reviewer stopped the process part-way through the manuscript due to frequent number of errors in grammar, sentence structure and technical vocabulary.  Once the authors have addressed these fundamental  issues, then the manuscript can be assessed for its scientific merits.

 

Sustainability-1921799

Chemo-sonic pretreatment approach on marine kelp for energy efficient biohydrogen production

 

Review Comments:

First impressions

Is the research original, novel and important to the field?

-       It is obvious that a great deal of work has gone into the creation of this manuscript. The work is original and important to this field of study.

-       The main drawbacks to this manuscript are the multiple errors in Technical English.

-       The authors mix colloquial spoken English with formal Technical English.

-       Before this paper can be reviewed on its technical merits, the authors need to work with a native English-speaking editor to address the large number of structural errors in the manuscript.

Has the appropriate structure and language been used?

The structure and the language is irregular. There are a number of errors with regards to grammar, sentence structure and technical vocabulary.

 

Abstract

Is it really a summary?

-       The abstract presents a summary of the ideas and outcomes described in the paper.

-       The authors have not included highlights nor a graphical abstract.

Does it include key findings?

Yes, the authors describe the key findings of their experiments.

Is it an appropriate length?

Yes, the abstract is of reasonable length.

Corrections: 

Page 1, line13 – “Chaetomorpha antennina” is a marine green alga, not a kelp. Correct this term throughout the manuscript.   “https://www.algaebase.org/search/species/detail/?species_id=x648c3329f3cf47c3”.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kelp  Kelp is marine alga within the order Laminariales, Chaetomorpha antennina is a green alga within the order Cladophorales.

 

Page 1, lines 17-24 – If the authors are going to use acronyms, they should first define them before incorporating them into the sentences.

Introduction

Is it effective, clear and well organized?

The authors have done an adequate job at stating the general problems, opportunities and their approach to biohydrogen production.

 

Does it really introduce and put into perspective what follows?

In spite of lapses in grammar and sentence structure, the authors have done a good job introducing the ideas of their study.

 

Suggest changes in organization and point authors to appropriate citations.

Overall, the introduction is adequate.

Possible Improvement:

There are several improvements or changes needed in the introduction and are mentioned below.

Corrections:

Page 1, line 33 – “huge bestower of energy”  Change to “a significant potential source of energy”.

 

Page 1, line 34 – “Marine kelp “  Change to “Marine macro algae” throughout the entire manuscript.  Chaetomorpha antennina is not a form of kelp.

Page 2, line 51 – “melting of ice rocks”  Change to “melting glaciers and ice bergs”.

Page 2, line 60 – “biomass is fragmented”  Change to “the structural integrity of the biomass can be degraded.”

Page 2, lines 64-65 – “that works under mechanical principle namely called as sonication”  Delete this part of the sentence, it is redundant.

Page 2, lines 65-66 – “which is used to smash the cell wall of the biomass ” Change to “which is used to disrupt the cell walls of the biomass”. 

 

Page 2, line 70 – “due to this pressure waves cavity bubbles are developed” Change to “due to these pressure waves, cavitation develops”. The common term in technical English is cavitation, not cavity bubbles.

 

Page 2, lines 71-72 – “disintegrate it”  Change to “disrupt it”.

Page 2, line 72 – “Energy exhaustion is a major concern”  What does this mean?

Page 2, line 76 – “reduces the time consumption of pretreatment”  Awkward phrase

Page 2, line 77 – “more economically and effectively comfortable” What is this?

Methodology

Can a colleague reproduce the experiments and get the same outcomes?                 

The methodology section describes each of the methods in depth such that the experiments could be reproduced by another researcher. The details of the experimental design need improvement.

Did the authors include proper references to previously published methodology? 

All of the sections dealing with different analytical methods were cited with historic and contemporary references.

Is the description of new methodology accurate? Yes

Corrections:

Page 2, line 82 – “was seized from” Change to “was collected from”.

Page 2, lines 85-86 – “2cm size for a considerable fragment of cell wall bond during sonication”  What does this mean?

-The high frequency of basic errors in grammar, sentence structure and technical vocabulary make it difficult to review the technical merits of this manuscript.

-The authors need to make these corrections before a proper review can be performed.

Results and Discussion

Suggest improvements in the way data is shown

-

Comment on general logic and on justification of interpretations and conclusions

-

Comment on the number of figures, tables and schemes

-

Write concisely and precisely which changes you recommend

Correction: 

-

List separately suggested changes in style, grammar and other small changes

-       The writing style and grammar in need major improvement. 

Suggest additional experiments or analyses

-        

Make clear the need for changes/updates

-       The authors need to make many changes to this manuscript.

-        

Ask yourself whether the manuscript should be published at all

-       This will be determined once the authors have addressed the fundamental issues mentioned above.

Conclusion

Comment on importance, validity and generality of conclusions

-       .

Request toning down of unjustified claims and generalizations

-       .

Request removal of redundancies and summaries

-       .

The abstract, not the conclusion, summarizes the study

-       .

 

References, tables and figures

Check accuracy, number and citation appropriateness

-       .

Comment on any footnotes

 

Comment on figures, their quality and readability

-       .

Assess completeness of legends, headers and axis labels

-       .

 

Check presentation consistency

-       .

 

Comment on need for color in figures

-       .

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx