PONE-D-23-06748Binder-type effect on the physico-mechanical, combustion and emission properties of Alstonia boonei De Wild. sawdust and Theobroma cacao L. pod briquettes as bioenergy productsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Antwi-Boasiako (Ph.D),

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 May 25 2023 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:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled '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,

Nakorn Tippayawong, PhD

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 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

3. We note that you have referenced (ie. Bewick et al. [5]) which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Bewick et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style 

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

1) Please state clearly academic/research contribution of this work to the bioenergy/ agriculture fields, preferably towards the end of the Introduction section

2) All test/ measurement methods used should follow accepted standards. Please refer to the standard methods this work adopted.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: Comments for the manuscript entitled “Binder-type effect on the physico-mechanical, combustion and emission properties of Alstonia boonei De Wild. sawdust and Theobroma cacao L. pod briquettes as bioenergy products” (MS ID: PONE-D-23-06748)

It is interesting to study the briquetization and characterization of biochar briquette produced from Alstonia boonei De Wild. sawdust and Theobroma cacao L. pod with different binders. However, some aspects are not clear. Thus, the comments for improving this manuscript are listed as below.

Title

- The authors should consider this modified title “Binder-type effect on the physico-mechanical, combustion and emission properties of Alstonia boonei De Wild. and Theobroma cacao L. pod biochar briquettes for energy applications”.

- The title should be clearly indicated as biomass briquettes or biochar briquettes.

Abstract

- Try to avoid wording “Energy production and energy generation”. This is because energy can not be generated following the first law of Thermodynamics. If energy can be produced or generated, it will destroy that law. You may change as “energy application….”.

- Type of combustor and combustion condition strongly affect the emissions both flue gas components and PM concentration, thus this information should be mentioned.

- Key results like energy properties should be reported in this section.

Introduction

- The reason for why biochar briquette is more interesting than biomass briquette should be added in this section.

- The order of reason or research motivation of this section should be revised. The logical order is required of this section.

- The key properties of biochar briquette should be mentioned and which factors affect the biochar briquette properties. Many previous studies have done and reported about the biochar production and characterization.

- The reason (s) for why binder type strongly affects the biochar briquette properties both mechanical and energy aspects, as well as the criteria for selecting the biochar type.

Materials and methods

- The temperature for biochar production needs to be clearly indicated.

- The authors should clearly indicate that this study uses biomass sawdust or biochar sawdust for briquetization.

- The determination of bulk density by water displacement is not suitable for biochar briquette. This is because this material absorbs water during dipping or soaking. Thus, the recorded volume or mass will be error. The non-wetting fluids are more suitable or the way of solid displacement by using very fine grass bead.

- The properties of raw materials should be determined and reported.

- What is the basic density? Normally, the density of materials can be reported as bulk density or true density. It is the density of single briquette or briquettes, this requires the information.

- The authors did not determine the energy properties like gross components (proximate analysis), elemental components (ultimate analysis), heating value and energy density of the produced biochar briquette. These basic properties should be determined and reported.

- The burning test of biochar briquette performed at ambient air or suppling air. The condition should be clearly indicated because it strongly affects the burning rate.

- Do the authors dry the biochar briquette sample after briquetization before determining the properties? The moisture content of dried biochar briquette should be reported.

- For biochar briquetization with binder, the temperature during the process is important for the adhesion of binder and biochar particle. This study did not mention about this issue.

Results and discussion

- The authors need to check the unit of burning rate. The results showed that the value was in the range of 0.5-2.5 x 103 kg/min (Fig. 5), which is so high.

- This study produced solid biofuel but the energy properties of the product are not reported. Thus, the authors should report them.

- The authors reported the specific fuel consumption for boiling water. However, this point may not reply the useful energy of the product. This is because heat loss may be prominent during burning of biochar briquette.

- The authors should give the reasons how binder type and biomass type affect the emission both CO and PM.

- The key results should be clearly indicated and discussed.

- Check the unit of density, for example, 490 kg/cm3 or it is 490 kg/m3?

English

- Carefully check the typing and format of typing. Some sentences have words with capital letter.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well-prepared but significant improvements are necessary. Major revision is required. Authors can find the comments as follows:

1) Section 2.1: Carbonization temperature and heating rate should be reported.

2) Citation is very excessive. In general, original research article should have not more than 50 references. Please recheck and remove some references that are not related to the text. For example, citation [43] has nothing to do with the basic density definition or method. Only reference [42] is enough. Also, reference [40] may not be necessary, instead the detail method of quenching and weighing can be described.

3) It is better (if possible) to have real evidence by performing some analysis work instead of just citing the reference. For example, the structure or constituent of each binder should be analyzed so their characteristics that affect the property of the briquette can be investigated. For example, Page 11 Line 259-260, fatty acid molecule in wax gave the resulted briquette heavy and stable unlike the one made with starch. Also, authors discuss about pore size of the material. It is better to perform BET surface analysis of the samples instead of just citing the reference (Page 12, Line 281-282).

4) Figure 3 is strange. density values should not be presented with the water resistance capacity. They have different unit and meaning. Also, their values are significantly different; the scale should be adjusted appropriately. Figure 4 and 5 has the same issue.

5) Fracture toughness results are very interesting and unique. However, the discussion on the effect of pore size of clay is based on citation (Page 15, Line 336). It is better to have real pore size analysis and discuss with your own results. Also, Line 335 read "the lower the MC of the briquette, the greater is its fracture toughness [27]", is that your own results or it is only from the citation? Please clarify. If MC is the parameter during briquetting process, it should be mentioned in the methodology.

6) What is a,b,c,d,e superscript in Table 2.

7) Conclusion should be rewritten. Some opening sentences are needed before bullet conclusions.

**********

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

**********

[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.

PONE-D-23-06748R1Binder-type effect on the physico-mechanical, combustion and emission properties of Alstonia boonei De Wild. sawdust and Theobroma cacao L. pod biochar briquettes for energy applicationsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Antwi-Boasiako (Ph.D),

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 Mar 03 2024 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:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled '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,

Nakorn Tippayawong, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Comments for the revised manuscript “Binder-type effect on the physico-mechanical, combustion and emission properties of Alstonia boonei De Wild. sawdust and Theobroma cacao L. pod briquettes as bioenergy products” (MS. no: PONE-D-23-06748R1)

- The authors must check the unit of bulk density in the abstract and other sections. How it is possible the bulk density was 640 kg/cm3 or 433 kg/cm3? If you mean 640 g/cm3 or 433 g/cm3, I agree with you for this. It is ok for SI unit, but the unit is not correct?

- The authors should provide the space between number and its unit. Check throughout the manuscript.

- I still do not agree with the basic density, if you mean bulk density, you should use this word. And, you have to indicate that it is bulk density of single briquette, not briquettes to avoid the confusion of the reader.

- Page 10 and line 224: the author needs to check the mass of sample of briquette for boiling test. You used only 0.087 kg for boiling 2 kg of sample (water+beaker), how is it possible?

- Page 10, line 220: the author needs to check this meaning “energy efficiency transfer”, it is suitable for your test?

- For biochar briquetization with binder, the authors did not measure the temperature of cylindrical steel mould (near to inside wall). How the authors know that the binder (starch) is gelatinization for binding the biochar particles?

Reviewer #2: Authors responded and revised manuscript according to the suggestion. The manuscript is ready for publication in the journal.

**********

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

**********

[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.

PONE-D-23-06748R2Binder-type effect on the physico-mechanical, combustion and emission properties of Alstonia boonei De Wild. sawdust and Theobroma cacao L. pod biochar briquettes for energy applicationsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Glalah,

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 Mar 16 2024 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:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled '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,

Nakorn Tippayawong, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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

**********

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

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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: The unit of bulk density is not correct. It must be kg/m3 or g/cm3. The authors must improve this issue throughout the manuscript.

**********

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

**********

[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.

PONE-D-23-06748R3Binder-type effect on the physico-mechanical, combustion and emission properties of Alstonia boonei De Wild. sawdust and Theobroma cacao L. pod biochar briquettes for energy applicationsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Glalah,

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.

==============================

Reviewer #3: This manuscript discussed char briquette made of two kinds of raw materials with different binder namely clay, starch, and wax. Some questions should be raised since the experiment on these products are less clear, for instances:

1. Why authors choose char-briquettes instead of briquette? This information should be included in introduction section.

2. Why authors use wax as the binder? It is not safe if the char briquettes are used as barbeques fuel!

3. It is better to include the chemical content of the raw materials (pod of cacao and sawdust of Alstonia wood) as well as after they become char.

4. The composition of mixture pod and sawdust was missing in the method.

5. The binder should be stated as weight/weight (w/w) or weight/volume (w/v).

6. The authors emphasized on binder but the fundamental characteristics of the binders (origin, chemical content, MSDS/ material safety data sheet, etc) were missing in the text.

7. Authors mentioned 10 replications for each type of the briquette. However, when I checked into the excel (supplementary materials), there were only three replications that authors did for testing.

8. Further, for statistical analysis, I could not find the complete analysis. They should be attached in the excel supplementary materials

9. Bio-char is related also as the absorbent instead of only for fuel. Why authors did not test for this purpose?

10. Please make the conclusion concise! Not point by point!

Reviewer #4: The document evaluated is very interesting and is also the result of rigorous and well-cared for research. I would only recommend that you consider your projection of the results of this work in other parts of the world that have these natural resources.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 24 2024 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:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled '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,

Noé Aguilar-Rivera

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review plos one binder.docx

Binder-type effect on the physico-mechanical, combustion and emission properties of Alstonia boonei De Wild. sawdust and Theobroma cacao L. pod biochar briquettes for energy applications

PONE-D-23-06748R4

Dear Dr. Mark Glalah

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Noé Aguilar-Rivera

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: