Forecasting Quantitative Risk Indicators of Investors in Projects of Biohydrogen Production from Agricultural Raw Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments:

The Authors corrected the title and spelling and removed the most linguistically defective fragment of the manuscript (lines 75-134 according to the previous numbering). These changes improved the overall layout and made the article clearer. However, most of the substantive objections have not been clarified.

Notes on the language used and the quality of the text editing:

Most typos have been corrected or removed. Unfixed errors: CO2 indexes, "640 final" (?), others: "frombiohydrogen", title of Figure 4, incorrectly used times, e.g. "are made" instead of “were made”.

Notes to the graphs:

The previous comments remain valid. Particularly striking is the lack of reference in the text to Figures 1 and 2 and the lack of a deeper analysis of the charts.

Notes to the Introduction:

The Authors completed the review of the state of knowledge as well as the purpose and scope of the article. However, they left the previous comments regarding "the most profitable solutions", "hydrogen from water electrolysis", "new financial taxonomy" (?) unanswered.

Notes to the Materials and Methods:

Redundant information has been removed. But data on the type of agricultural waste used and conditions of biohydrogen production are still missing.

Notes to the Results:

Added sentence "The biomass gasification based on hydrogen production system overcomes with the energy and exergy efficiencies of 53.6% and 49.8% with the hydrogen production rate of 106.9 g / s." is not clear. It is not known what kind of biomass was used and what biomass stream is related to the given hydrogen production efficiency.

Notes to the Conclusions:

Previous doubts remain valid

Notes to the References:

References have not been completed (applies to lines 51-55 according to the previous version), the format of the list of references is still not standardized (see the names of some authors), others corrections have been introduced.

Author Response

Thank you for the detailed review of the article! We took into account the comments, added and corrected sections, grammar and more!

We hope for a positive result this time!

Sincerely, Taras Hutsol

 

Notes on the language used and the quality of the text editing:

Most typos have been corrected or removed. Unfixed errors: CO2 indexes, "640 final" (?), others: "frombiohydrogen", title of Figure 4, incorrectly used times, e.g. "are made" instead of “were made”.

Corrected

Notes to the graphs:

The previous comments remain valid. Particularly striking is the lack of reference in the text to Figures 1 and 2 and the lack of a deeper analysis of the charts.

Corrected

Notes to the Introduction:

The Authors completed the review of the state of knowledge as well as the purpose and scope of the article. However, they left the previous comments regarding "the most profitable solutions", "hydrogen from water electrolysis", "new financial taxonomy" (?) unanswered.

Corrected

Notes to the Materials and Methods:

Redundant information has been removed. But data on the type of agricultural waste used and conditions of biohydrogen production are still missing.

Notes to the Results:

Added sentence "The biomass gasification based on hydrogen production system overcomes with the energy and exergy efficiencies of 53.6% and 49.8% with the hydrogen production rate of 106.9 g / s." is not clear. It is not known what kind of biomass was used and what biomass stream is related to the given hydrogen production efficiency.

Notes to the Conclusions:

Previous doubts remain valid

Added a section "discussion….", Which discusses the feasibility of our research and the results obtained in the context of other research.

Notes to the References:

References have not been completed (applies to lines 51-55 according to the previous version), the format of the list of references is still not standardized (see the names of some authors), others corrections have been introduced.

Corrected

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you.

Author Response

Thanks for the positive review!

Reviewer 3 Report

In this contribution, authors provided an approach based on simulation modeling of projects of production of  biohydrogen and obtained results clearly show that in the next few years the interest in the production and in the use of hydrogen, produced by this sustainable way, will grow up significantly.

The topic is surely of high relevance, being timely and a hot topic at the moment.

Article may be of interest for publication in Processes journal. Therefore, the following points need to be addressed before the publication:

1. Introduction and conclusions section should be improved and more detailed.
2. Article is supported by few references: add other appropriate ones.
3. Introduction lacks key and recent references in the field of byhydrogen production from renewable resources (see some reviews published on this topic: Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 127, 2020, 109852, Chem Soc Rev, 40, 2011, 5588-5617; Catal Today, 111, 2006, 119-132).
4. Both figures 3 and figure 5 should be improved: group the plots for each figure into a single clear one (for example two plots on the same line). In this way the caption will be clear/visible for the entire figure. Again, for both, the legend should be moved out of the figure in order to not overlap with lines/dates of plots.
5. Some english polishing to correct typos and mistakes is needed.
6. Some references must get the right formatting.

Author Response

Thank you for the detailed review of the article! We took into account the comments, added and corrected sections, grammar and more!

We hope for a positive result this time!

Sincerely, Taras Hutsol

 

In this contribution, authors provided an approach based on simulation modeling of projects of production of  biohydrogen and obtained results clearly show that in the next few years the interest in the production and in the use of hydrogen, produced by this sustainable way, will grow up significantly.

The topic is surely of high relevance, being timely and a hot topic at the moment.

Article may be of interest for publication in Processes journal. Therefore, the following points need to be addressed before the publication:

1. Introduction and conclusions section should be improved and more detailed.

Corrected

 

2. Article is supported by few references: add other appropriate ones.

Corrected

 

3. Introduction lacks key and recent references in the field of byhydrogen production from renewable resources (see some reviews published on this topic: Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 127, 2020, 109852, Chem Soc Rev, 40, 2011, 5588-5617; Catal Today, 111, 2006, 119-132).

Corrected

4. Both figures 3 and figure 5 should be improved: group the plots for each figure into a single clear one (for example two plots on the same line). In this way the caption will be clear/visible for the entire figure. Again, for both, the legend should be moved out of the figure in order to not overlap with lines/dates of plots.

It is impossible to group figures of figures 3-5 as their visualization is received on the basis of use of the developed application software for separate realizations (the forecasted calendar year). To eliminate this remark, thorough corrections should be made in the developed application software, and this will not provide proper visualization of project managers who will use it in practice

5. Some english polishing to correct typos and mistakes is needed.

Corrected

 

6. Some references must get the right formatting.

Corrected

Reviewer 4 Report

The article concerns the analysis of the "...Risk Indicators of Investors in Projects of Biohydrogen Production from Agricultural Raw Materials".
The topic was presented in an interesting way. It is suitable for a magazine.

In this article, I suggest working on:

•  introduction - there is also a literature review that should be included in the second part. I propose to edit these two parts.
• Materials and Methods - this part should be expanded and presented in more detail, e.g. when the research and other detailed data were carried out, which may improve the quality of reception for the reader
• the weakest part is Conclusions. I propose that the authors propose a "discussion" section in which they discuss the results obtained in the context of other studies as well. Maybe a reference to research on other regions of the world?

Author Response

Thank you for the detailed review of the article! We took into account the comments, added and corrected sections, grammar and more!

We hope for a positive result this time!

Sincerely, Taras Hutsol

The article concerns the analysis of the "...Risk Indicators of Investors in Projects of Biohydrogen Production from Agricultural Raw Materials".
The topic was presented in an interesting way. It is suitable for a magazine.

In this article, I suggest working on:

• introduction - there is also a literature review that should be included in the second part. I propose to edit these two parts.
• Materials and Methods - this part should be expanded and presented in more detail, e.g. when the research and other detailed data were carried out, which may improve the quality of reception for the reader
• the weakest part is Conclusions. I propose that the authors propose a "discussion" section in which they discuss the results obtained in the context of other studies as well. Maybe a reference to research on other regions of the world?

Added a section "discussion….", Which discusses the feasibility of our research and the results obtained in the context of other research.

Reviewer 5 Report

The revised manuscript and authors' responses have adequately addressed the reviewer's concerns.  

Author Response

Thanks for the positive review!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

English language and style has been corrected (although some of the changes are only "cosmetic"), however, many of the issues that I had previously reported (such as hydrogen production methods, “the most profitable solutions”, kind of raw materials, "relevant calculations") remained unchanged. The reference list is still not uniform (e.g. items: 23,25,30,31).

Author Response

Thanks for the positive review!

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors successfully address all raised points. Paper can be accepted in the present form.

Author Response

Thanks for the positive review!