Optimization of Esterase Production in Solid-State Fermentation of Agricultural Digestate

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion, the article is not valuable from a scientific point of view, there is no novelty.

All notes are available in the PDF file of the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thanks for your comments and suggestion.

Please find in attachement the point by point answer to your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1  During the  Solid State Fermentation, did you consider effect of oxgen on the fermentation? If you did, why did you show the opertation parameter? 

2 As for cellulase actibitiy detection, why did you test ony endoglucanase actibitiy?

3 I suggest to revise Ten  μL to 10  μL. As the same as other unit.

4 Pls clearly demonstrate the section 3. Analytic methods  at the end of the section 2. Materials and Methods.

5 In this manuscript, the strain names such as T. asperellum,  Trichoderma asperellum should be written in italics. 

6 In the section 3. Results and Discussion, most of the description in sub title is review, I strongly suggeste that you should delete some review, and pay more attention to description on the experimental results and discussion on these results.

7 In the line 221, 3.3. Esterase optimization, it should be 3.3. Esterase production optimization???

8 On the model fitness, you should indicate the fitness method and calculation method or software.

English language of this manuscript was written well.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thanks for your comments and suggestion.

Please find in attachement the point by point answer to your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article fermentation-2398651 consisted of a study on optimization of esterase production from anaerobic digestion residue. The work is appropriate for this journal, but some corrections are needed.

Lines 20-22: Rephrase this sentence;

Line 27: It is more appropriate to report enzymatic activity in IU/mg of substrate, as it allows comparison with the literature;

Line 44: bioethanol is a biofuel;

Lines 70-73: Rephrase this sentence;

Line 77: It is necessary to justify the choice of this fungus;

Lines 102, 236: Delete references. Use only numbers in square brackets;

Line 116: Ideally, analyze enzyme activity on the day the sample was generated. Freeze/thaw causes loss of activity;

Line 134: Bradford method is interfered by phenols. Furthermore, the raw material probably already contained proteins before solid-state fermentation;

Lines 202, 229, etc: Always write the name of the fungus in italics;

Results and conclusion: ok

It`s ok.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thanks for your comments and suggestion.

Please find in attachement the point by point answer to your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved the quality of the manuscript, but the quality of Figure 1 also needs to be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

here attach the answer to you comment and suggestion.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors had carefully revised the manuscript according to the comments of the reviewers, and the quality of the text was obviously improved. It meets the basic requirement for publishing in the journal.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thanks for your kind revision