Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionMarch 18, 2022 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-22-08124Pyrolysis-GCMS of Spirulina platensis: evaluation of biomasses cultivated under autotrophic and mixotrophic conditions.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chagas, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 10 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ashokkumar Veeramuthu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 3. Please upload a new copy of Figure 1, 3 and 4 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/ [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Partly ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: N/A ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear Editor; The manuscript entitled " Pyrolysis-GCMS of Spirulina platensis: evaluation of biomasses cultivated under autotrophic and mixotrophic conditions". It is reviewed, This study is comprehensive research. This study is interesting and useful. But there are some deficienciesis in manuscript. By this, minor revision required for article. The paper should be thoroughly revised (typing and grammar mistakes and another mistakes).The manuscript is recommended for publication. 1- Pls Explain wh did you use this material. 2- How were species selections determined? 3- You should provide more detailed information about the Pyrolysis process and characterization. The following references will be helpful. you can add Bio-oil and bio-char from lactuca scariola: significance of catalyst and temperature for assessing yield and quality of pyrolysis.Energy Sources, Part A. Pyrolysis of Xanthium strumarium in a fixed bed reactor: Effects of boron catalysts and pyrolysis parameters on product yields and character. Energy Sources Part A The role of acidic, alkaline and hydrothermal pretreatment on pyrolysis of wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis) on the properties of bio-oil and bio-char. Bioresorce technology reports 3-In the conclusion section, describe the new ideas you have identified with your work. 4-The information in the sections you wrote is very scattered. Please let your explanations complement each other and be relevant and complete. The information you provide should be easy for the reader to understand. Reviewer #2: This research provides results from the Py-GCMS of Spirulina platensis. Unfortunately, I have three major issues with this work. The first is that this is not particularly in depth, with only a handful of experiments completed. This means there is not very much to be drawn from this study to take the field on further. This is vital to publish in a journal like PlusOne. The second is that studies regarding the Py-GC-MS of Spirulina platensis have been published a lot elsewhere. I don't see any fundamental new insights in this work to suggest it belongs in a high impact journal such as this one. The third is error analysis and presentation of the data. Therefore, I would suggest the authors do a little more work to try and gain a little more fundamental insight into what is happening. Do proper error analysis on the results. You simply have to have multiple repeats in Py-GC-MS work, to demonstrate that any changes in bio-crude content are not spurious. Other comments: Each identified compound should be given. Please provide standard deviation for each compound rather than chemical group. Please provide pyrograms obtained at 450, 550 and 650 ºC. Why did these pyrolysis temperatures were chosen? More in-depth discussions are needed during the analyses. Reviewer #3: The manuscript "Pyrolysis-GCMS of Spirulina platensis obtained under mixotrophic growth" aims to evaluate the potential for the production of chemicals and bio-oil 131 by pyrolysis of S. platensis grown in autotrophic and mixotrophic culture medium 132 using cheese whey as a source of organic carbon by pyrolysis analysis (Py-GC/MS). It appears to be a continuation of the previous study (doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224294), focusing on biomass conversion by pyrolysis. The manuscript presents an interesting and relevant study but some points need to be considered before the final decision: 1. Abstract - the abstract does not present quantitative data, the methods need to be better described and the objective is not clear. The keyword bio-oil do not represent this study since it was not analyzed or produced. In The line 44 the authors mencioned an influence of %whey with TGA that was not clear. 2. Introduction - The main relevant/justification text of introduction can be observed between lines 122-129. As suggest, the authors could improve the introduction bringing additional information. Some paragraphs are disconnected and part of the text is not relevant to this study Some sentences need english/langague revision for better undestand. Line 66 "In this perspective, microalgae seem to be a promising alternative biomass to produce 66 biofuel since these microorganisms offering high growth rate when compared to higher plants..." What does it mean higher plants? Line 83"... the total cost of the microalgae production process can reach up to 50% due to the inorganic nutrients and vitamins that are used..." Compare to what? Line 96 "... It has been shown that microalgae bio-oil has better chemical 97 properties than lignocellulosic bio-oil,..." and Line 116 "Pyrolysis of protein-rich biomass, including microalgae, produces a bio-oil with a high nitrogen content, reaching up to more than 10% of the elemental content, which is a major disadvantage, since this bio-oil cannot be used directly as fuel ..." seem contradictory. 3. Materials and methods The methods should be better described. Did the microalgae go through any preparation stage before the analysis? Was It analyzed in fresh or lyophilized form? What was the mass used in the pyrolysis analysis? Line 143 - Despite the methodology being described in a previous work, it is interesting to describe the origin and characteristics of the source of nutrients in microalgae culture medium, since the objective of the work is to evaluate its influence on the products formed. 4. Results The text between lines 195-209 do not represent a discussion of manuscript results, it describe a revision of literature. The results should be better discussed, the text describe the results of the Table 1. Insted of describe the authors could answer some question as *Why a reduction of carbon content was observed for all biomass obtained under mixotrophic? Why lipids and protein content decreased and carbohydrates increase? Please confirm the % residual of thermogravimetric curves (a) e (d) Line 356 - "...hydrocarbons, oxygenated, nitrogenated, nitrogenated and oxygenated and phenolic" Does the results present in Fig 3 including the same compounds in different classes? Line 375 - "During the pyrolysis process at higher temperatures, the formation of gases is favored over the production of bio-oil and biochar then possibly the bio-oil produced has less oxygenated compounds," Avoid o term "possibly" Line 378 - "Previous studies indicate that the oxygenated compounds formed by the pyrolysis process of microalgae are formed from carbohydrate molecules." Please indicate the reference Line 391 - "The formation of nitrogenated compounds varied as a function of composition biomass and temperature and the highest yields were observed at 650°C independent of biomass (Fig.4)" Why the pyrolysis high temperature increase %N compounds? Line 403 - The whey insertion into microalgae medium improve the N supply, since it is a protein souce. The authors mencioned " If the nitrogen supply is abundant in the culture medium, there is a tendency to increase the concentrations of proteins and chlorophylls in the cells." but that was not the expected result found in the manuscript. If Fig 3 and 4 show the same results It could be better choose one of the to present and avoid repetition. ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 1 |
|
Pyrolysis-GCMS of Spirulina platensis: evaluation of biomasses cultivated under autotrophic and mixotrophic conditions. PONE-D-22-08124R1 Dear Dr. Bruna Maria E. Chagas, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Md. Asraful Alam, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: No ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Although necessary changes are not fully made, they are acceptable.Although necessary changes are not fully made, they are acceptable.Although necessary changes are not fully made, they are acceptable. Reviewer #2: The authors have revised the manuscript thoroughly and carefully based on all the comments indicated by the reviewer. I recommend this paper for publication in its current form. ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ********** |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-22-08124R1 Pyrolysis-GCMS of Spirulina platensis: evaluation of biomasses cultivated under autotrophic and mixotrophic conditions Dear Dr. Chagas: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Md. Asraful Alam Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .