Comparison of Different Carbon Sources on Biomethane Production with Clostridium cellulovorans and Methanogens
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article investigates the production of biomethane from bacteria by combining Clostridium cellulovorans with a methanogen. The results are interesting and worthy of publication, and my main objections are to the layout of the text and figures.
The "Microorganisms" journal template is left on the front page, please omit this.
The abbreviations C. cellulovorans (C.c) and M. mazei (M.m) are not necessary, please do not use them.
Figure 1: the ordinate and abscissa marks are missing, add them. The lines are quite thick, it is good to have a legend to make the results easier to understand.
There are errors in the Figure 2 legend. Also, it is not of good quality, reformat.
Figure 3: Very small and illegible. The ordinate and abscissa marks are missing. The abscissa should read "Time (day)".
Figure 4: remove the capital letters "A" and "B", refer to the journal template for the correct form. "Other" is more correct. If you can, increase the font size.
The quality of English is good.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #1:
Thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions. We deeply appreciate you for taking care of them. Please see the below.
Best regards,
Prof. Dr. Yutaka TAMARU
The "Microorganisms" journal template is left on the front page, please omit this.
--> We are so sorry, but we checked and modified the manuscript. The title was also corrected.
The abbreviations C. cellulovorans (C.c) and M. mazei (M.m) are not necessary, please do not use them.
--> We corrected all of them.
Figure 1: the ordinate and abscissa marks are missing, add them. The lines are quite thick, it is good to have a legend to make the results easier to understand.
--> We replaced Figure 1 to the corrected one. We also changed the legend to the symbols: rhombus, formate; square, lactate, circle, acetate; triangle, butyrate.
There are errors in the Figure 2 legend. Also, it is not of good quality, reformat.
--> We replaced Figure 2 to the corrected one.
Figure 3: Very small and illegible. The ordinate and abscissa marks are missing. The abscissa should read "Time (day)".
--> We replaced Figure 3 to the corrected one. We showed Figure 3 larger than before.
Figure 4: remove the capital letters "A" and "B", refer to the journal template for the correct form. "Other" is more correct. If you can, increase the font size.
--> We corrected Figure 4 to the corrected one. “Other” is replaced to “The other species”. We increased the font size.
Reviewer 2 Report
(1) Abstract: The percentages of the medium components such PM, glucose, acetate are not clear.
(2) Abstract (line 21 and 25): It is unclear how the authors utilized 1% methane as a carbon source to produce the same product (methane).
(3) The authors stated in the abstract that they used a 1% methane and 1% methanol medium, yet there is no explanation of this in the materials and methods section.
(4) The materials and methods section needs to be explained precisely, showing every step of the study. When making modifications, please crosscheck with other sections of the manuscript to ensure consistency.
(5) In general, the abstract is confusing and needs to be rewritten.
(6) Line 118: Which samples?
(7) Overall, this paper requires thorough revisions throughout the manuscript.
Moderate editing of English language
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #2:
Thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions. We deeply appreciate you for taking care of them. Please see the below.
Best regards,
Prof. Dr. Yutaka TAMARU
(1) Abstract: The percentages of the medium components such PM, glucose, acetate are not clear.
--> The percentages of the medium components are 0.5% PM, 0.5% glucose, and 0.5 % acetate respectively, and 1% acetate used in the media in comparison with 1% methanol in the medium.
(2) Abstract (line 21 and 25): It is unclear how the authors utilized 1% methane as a carbon source to produce the same product (methane).
--> We are so sorry, but we corrected 1% methane to 1% methanol.
(3) The authors stated in the abstract that they used a 1% methane and 1% methanol medium, yet there is no explanation of this in the materials and methods section.
--> We are so sorry, but we mistyped and corrected 1% methane to 1% methanol.
(4) The materials and methods section needs to be explained precisely, showing every step of the study. When making modifications, please crosscheck with other sections of the manuscript to ensure consistency.
--> We divided materials and methods 2.1 to 2.1 microorganisms and 2.2 culture conditions for each step and each experiment.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is substantially improved. Table 1 needs re-formatting according to the journal's requirements.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #1:
Thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions. We corrected and re-formatted Table 1 according to the journal's requirements. Also, we will ask MDPI final English checks and corrections for it.
Best regards,
Prof. Dr. Yutaka TAMARU
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract: "After cultivation with 1% acetate or 1% methane, ...". Please double check this. Avoid confusions between methane and methanol through out the manuscript.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #2:
Thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions. We are so sorry, but we corrected “methane” to “methanol” in the Abstract. Also, we will ask MDPI final English checks and corrections for it.
Best regards,
Prof. Dr. Yutaka TAMARU
