Evaluation of Life Cycle Assessment of Jatropha Biodiesel Processed by Esterification of Thai Domestic Rare Earth Oxide Catalysts
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is interesting, but needs an in-depth review.
General considerations:
(1) The figures do not appear in the manuscript, making certain parts difficult to understand.
(2) The abstract and conclusions should be reviewed and rewritten, taking into account the Discussion section.
(3) Complete table 1, specifying biefly the reaction conditions (amounts, times??), to understand the 12 conditions of tables 4 and 5.
(4) Is the reaction to obtain biodiesel done in two steps? a) Hydrolysis with water and b) esterification in the presence of rare earth oxides. Because in tables 4 and 5 it does not distinguish, it says electricity (reaction).
Other more specific considerations are:
(5) On page 7, change the title of 3.1.3 and 3.14. sections: 3.1.3."Hydrolysis of jatropha oil triglycerides" and 3.1.4. "Esterification of fatty acids"
(6) On page 7, change equations 4 and 5, to an figure including the two reactions: a) hydrolysis reaction and b) esterification of fatty acid.
What is the meaning of "JCL oil"?, in equation 4
(7) On page 9, line 372, question: Is the “electricity use for hydrolysis production the same as "electricity (reaction)" of the table 4?
(8) On page 11, in table 5 highlight the values that change or include only those values: "electricity (reaction)", "summation of energy input (MJ)" and "NER"
(9) In pa11, line 412: change “conational diesel” to “conventional diesel”
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The manuscript is written quite correctly.
Author Response
Dear Editor
Please find attached response to reviewer of a research manuscript entitled "Uncertainty analysis of environmental sustainability of biodiesel production using Thai domestic rare earth oxide solid catalysts " written by Dussadee Rattanaphra, Sittinun Tawkaew, Sinsupha Chuichulcherm, Wilasinee Kingkam, Sasikarn Nuchdang, Kittiwan Kitpakornsanti and Unchalee Suwanmanee, for your consideration for the Journal Sustainability. This manuscript is unpublished for publication elsewhere.
We highly appreciate the reviewers for his/her meaningful and constructive comments which we have substantially improved our manuscript. We would like to apologize for some errors and lack of explanation on certain scientific statements. All the major and minor comments raised by the reviewers were discussed within the text. The changed and added texts in the revised manuscript are shown in yellow highlight.
The response to reviewer has been carefully prepared to the Journal Sustainability. Please let us know your decision at your earliest convenience. Your kind consideration on this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Unchalee Suwanmanee
Lecturer
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript "Evaluation of life-cycle assessment of Jatropha biodiesel processed by esterification of Thai domestic rare earth oxide catalysts", presents importants results on hot topic for global warming. The authors showed a LCA study that can provide and recommend for policy relevant information on the assessment of the environmental sustainability of biofuel development aspects in the future potential substitution of conventional diesel in Thailand.
This study can be extended to others countries.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Editor
Please find attached response to reviewer of a research manuscript entitled "Uncertainty analysis of environmental sustainability of biodiesel production using Thai domestic rare earth oxide solid catalysts " written by Dussadee Rattanaphra, Sittinun Tawkaew, Sinsupha Chuichulcherm, Wilasinee Kingkam, Sasikarn Nuchdang, Kittiwan Kitpakornsanti and Unchalee Suwanmanee, for your consideration for the Journal Sustainability. This manuscript is unpublished for publication elsewhere.
We highly appreciate the reviewers for his/her meaningful and constructive comments which we have substantially improved our manuscript. We would like to apologize for some errors and lack of explanation on certain scientific statements. All the major and minor comments raised by the reviewers were discussed within the text. The changed and added texts in the revised manuscript are shown in yellow highlight.
The response to reviewer has been carefully prepared to the Journal Sustainability. Please let us know your decision at your earliest convenience. Your kind consideration on this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Unchalee Suwanmanee
Lecturer
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors analyzed energy efficiency, global warming impacts in the context of land use change in Thailand by using the life cycle assessment method. The authors have conducted a lot of data research, and the conclusions can support most of the conclusions. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed. Additionally, the manuscript must be substantially revised before it can be considered for publication.
1. The first time an LCA is mentioned in an abstract, its full name should be used.
2. Where is Figure 1 located in the manuscript? The reviewer has not seen it.
3. Some literature related to LCA should be mentioned, for example: Science of the Total Environment, 2022, 814, 152870; Separation and Purification Technology, 2022, 301, 122063
4. The reviewer also did not see Figures 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in the manuscript.
5. All data should retain a consistent number of decimal places.
6. Conclusions should be more refined.
7. The first keyword is wrong.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Editor
Please find attached response to reviewer of a research manuscript entitled "Uncertainty analysis of environmental sustainability of biodiesel production using Thai domestic rare earth oxide solid catalysts " written by Dussadee Rattanaphra, Sittinun Tawkaew, Sinsupha Chuichulcherm, Wilasinee Kingkam, Sasikarn Nuchdang, Kittiwan Kitpakornsanti and Unchalee Suwanmanee, for your consideration for the Journal Sustainability. This manuscript is unpublished for publication elsewhere.
We highly appreciate the reviewers for his/her meaningful and constructive comments which we have substantially improved our manuscript. We would like to apologize for some errors and lack of explanation on certain scientific statements. All the major and minor comments raised by the reviewers were discussed within the text. The changed and added texts in the revised manuscript are shown in yellow highlight.
The response to reviewer has been carefully prepared to the Journal Sustainability. Please let us know your decision at your earliest convenience. Your kind consideration on this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Unchalee Suwanmanee
Lecturer
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents LCA of jatropha biodiesel production using different catalysts and compares against diesel production. There are several issues with this work:
1. The methods are not clearly presented. What is shown in the Results section is actually methods, while what is presented in the discussion section are results. The methods section needs to be significantly improved and clarified.
2. What are the LCA for the production of each catalysts? If taken from other published sources, then this needs to be clearly discussed in the methods section and still the values should be shown.
3. What was assumed for the production of biodiesel? Where was the oil extracted, biodiesel produced and what is the travel component of the impacts in the biodiesel production assumption. The LCA of biodiesel has production of the plants and travel components, but what about the biodiesel?
4. What is the difference between GWP of 30 for fossil CH4 and 28 for CH4? This is assumed in line 140. Why does CH4 have different GWP values?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English is very poor. The paper needs a significant revision by a qualified proof-reader who also has knowledge in the subject.
Author Response
Dear Editor
Please find attached response to reviewer of a research manuscript entitled "Uncertainty analysis of environmental sustainability of biodiesel production using Thai domestic rare earth oxide solid catalysts " written by Dussadee Rattanaphra, Sittinun Tawkaew, Sinsupha Chuichulcherm, Wilasinee Kingkam, Sasikarn Nuchdang, Kittiwan Kitpakornsanti and Unchalee Suwanmanee, for your consideration for the Journal Sustainability. This manuscript is unpublished for publication elsewhere.
We highly appreciate the reviewers for his/her meaningful and constructive comments which we have substantially improved our manuscript. We would like to apologize for some errors and lack of explanation on certain scientific statements. All the major and minor comments raised by the reviewers were discussed within the text. The changed and added texts in the revised manuscript are shown in yellow highlight.
The response to reviewer has been carefully prepared to the Journal Sustainability. Please let us know your decision at your earliest convenience. Your kind consideration on this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Unchalee Suwanmanee
Lecturer
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has effectively addressed the reviewer's concerns, making the manuscript suitable for publication in its current form.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors revised the manusript
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor corrections may be needed.
