Optical Spectrometry to Determine Nutrient Concentrations and other Physicochemical Parameters in Liquid Organic Manures: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very nice work;

1. Introduction - Introduced all the issue;
2. Spectrometric Methods - separate for topics and explained it detailed;
3. Published Data - works demonstration researched during selected time.  Question: Table 1a to 1e is the same title?
4. Applications in Laboratory and Field Practice - ok
5.  Conclusions  - ok

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

first of all, thanks a lot for your positive Feedback.

To your question: Table 1a to 1e is the same title?

Answer: Yes, but I made it clearer now.

Kind regards

Michael Horf

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract must respect editors’ template (A single paragraph of about 200 words maximum).

LINE                     OBS

26, 27 and 28     Is not ok to numbering in text.

93                        Try to move in next page. At my paper line 93 are last line in page 2.

127                      Use ";" after "used in 13–20)" not ","

130                      Use ";" after "used in 11,21–24)" not ","

135                      Use ";" after "used in 21,25,26), and" not ", and" (in this case we don't use "and")

141                      (equipped with: one of)

145                      Use ";" after "USA, used in 27), or" not ", or"

191                      Why (Figure 1) are bold?

222-229                             Use ";" not  "," at the end of line

231                      Use ";" not  ", or" at the end of line

233                      Use "." at the end of line or add some text explication for equations 4,5,6 and 7, at the end use ":"

Or add some text explication for equations 4,5,6 and 7 in next line (234)

 

234-237                             Before line 234 use "Where:" or something similar. Use ";" at the end of line

 

270-284                             Use ";" not  "," at the end of line

285                      Use ";" not  ", or" at the end of line

297                      Missing text about equations 8-13

Before line 298 use "Where:"

 

TABLES

367                      Must explain what is Table 1a. For example: Published data.... or Comparation between or Parameters of

268-372                             Must be after Table 1a (as a footer) - or in an explication text before or after

 

373                      Must explain what is Table 1b

379                      Must explain what is Table 1c

378                      Must explain what is Table 1d

396                      Must explain what is Table 1e

431                      Is ok

432-434                             Must be after table 2 in footer or in explication text

503                      Is ok

504-506                             Must be after table 3 in footer or in explication text

507                      Can you add more conclusions? Also, you can you use a comparation table, some data or numbering some conclusions.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

first of all, thanks a lot for remarks.

Comments:

1. Abstract must respect editors’ template (A single paragraph of about 200 words maximum).                                                                                        Answer: Abstract was reduced from 320 words to one paragraph with 270 words. It is difficult to reduce more without loosing important information. We hope that 270 words are okay, as Vandecasteele et al. 2022 was accepted with over 400 words (published on 08.02.22 at MDPI Agronomy).
2. Is not ok to numbering in text. (Abstract)                                            Answer: A rule of MDPI that forbids numbers in the abstract could not be identified. But we changed format from 1. to (1) as it is done in the example of the template.
3. Lines X: Use ";" after "..." not "," Answer: The comma after every list item was changed to semicolon and the binding words "and" and "or" between the last list items also were changed to semicolon. A point at the end of every last list item was added.
4.  Line 191: Why (Figure 1) are bold? Answer: Neither in the uploaded nor in the downloaded manuscript we could find that Figure 1 in Line 191 was bold.
5. Before line 234 and 298 use "Where:" or something similar. Answer: Done.
6. Line 297: Missing text about equations 8-13 Answer: We are not sure what  this remark is meaning as the equations 8-13 are all mentioned in the text including literature.
7. Lines 268-372: Must be after Table 1a (as a footer) - or in an explication text before or after. Answer: Probably meaning 369-372. The explanations of table items was placed after table as a footer. We did the same with table 2 and 3.
8. Must explain what is Table 1b-e. Answer: Done.
9. Can you add more conclusions? Also, you can you use a comparation table, some data or numbering some conclusions.                            Answer: A further sentence with data about determination coefficients was included. We also changed numbering format in the conclusions from (i) to (1) as done in the abstract. 

 

Kind regards

Michael Horf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is very interesting and valuable because of its comprehensive presentation of the subject of using optical spectrometry in liquid manure analysis. The review presents both fundamental, applied research, and industrial (in field) aspects of optical spectrometry in the qualitative analysis of liquid manure.

The manuscript of the paper is in accordance with the journal requirements and has been prepared with diligence without major editorial comments.

1. In Section 2.4, the authors introduce the term pseudo-absorbance for a parameter that is usually absorbance in the literature. The proposal of such terms requires additional literature references.
   
   
2. In chapter 2.5.2 , concerning regression methods, the authors describe ANN methods (line 261). I suggest to create a new chapter about ANN or the name of chapter 2.5.2 should be changed.
   
   
3. In the literature cited, especially in Tables 1 a, b and c, there are items that do not relate to studies on liquid forms of manure but are described as such:
   1. [34] Dong et al. 2011 - study concerned solid chicken manure and not liquid manure.
   2. [44] Chen et all 2010 – study concerned solid chicken manure and not liquid manure.
   3. [50] Chen et all 2009 – study concerned solid chicken manure and not liquid manure.
   4. [13] Althaus et all – the study concerned solid cow faeces, not liquid manure.
   5. [66] Benozzo el al. 2018 – the study concerned digestate and not liquid manure.
   6. [25] Finzi et al. 2015 - the study concerned solid chicken, cattle and pig manure and not liquid manure
   7. [22] Malley et al. 2005 – the survey concerned solid manure, including composted and uncomposted manure
   8. [26] Tamburini et al. 2015 - of the study concerned solid chicken manure and not liquid manure.
   9. [61] Xing et al. 2008 - the study concerned solid lying manure and not liquid manure,
   10. [32] Yang et al. 2006 - the study focused on a solid (floor scrapings) and not liquid manure.
   11. [20] Ye et al. 2005 – The study also looked at solid manure.

The authors have two solutions: Extend the review to include solid manure or remove from the paper works that deal with solid manure  and digestates.

4. Table 1c [57] Williams et al. 2020 – Wrong reference.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

first of all, thanks a lot for your positive Feedback.

Regarding your remarks:

1. In Section 2.4, the authors introduce the term pseudo-absorbance for a parameter that is usually absorbance in the literature. The proposal of such terms requires additional literature references.                                  Answer: Was edited and literature was added.
2. In chapter 2.5.2 , concerning regression methods, the authors describe ANN methods (line 261). I suggest to create a new chapter about ANN or the name of chapter 2.5.2 should be changed.                                  Answer: The name of chapter 2.5.2 was changed, although ANN also belongs to the category of regression models, as far as we know.
3. In the literature cited, especially in Tables 1 a, b and c, there are items that do not relate to studies on liquid forms of manure but are described as such:....                                                                                                      Answer: Thanks for this advice. But this not completely true. In the case of digestates we had asked a member of the international fertilizer society, who confirmed that biogas digestates belong to the category of liquid organic manures. Concerning studies e.g. using poultry excrements (urine and faeces) it is true that a mean water content of about 55% is not enough to be called liquid. For this reason, an additional information was added in the heading of table 1a. Using dried manure as an alternativ sample pretreatment step was already described in the manuscript. The remarked publication of Finzi et al. 2015 definitively uses liquid samples of dairy and pig as well as digestate manure. 
4. Table 1c [57] Williams et al. 2020 – Wrong reference                                      Answer: Good seen, mistake was corrected.

Kind regards 

Michael Horf