Acceleration of Composting by Addition of Clinker to Tea Leaf Compost

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Acceleration of composting by addition of clinker to tea leaves compost" presented a very interesting approach to using clinker in composting. The manuscript is worthy of publication but requires several improvements. Please find below the most important issues: 

1. Please improve the abstract section, including the following information: 

(i) statement of novelty

(ii) Methodologies and most important variables assessed (e.g., composting rate)

(ii) Quantitative information (e.g., how much was the COD decreased by adding clinker?)

2. The keywords are used to increase the paper's visibility. It is recommended to change the keywords to avoid repeating information in the title. 

3. Lines 31-33. This statement can be divided into two sentences to avoid wording

4. Introduction: Second paragraph. Are there statistics about the amount of tea leaves produced in a country? How much carbon dioxide can be released by burning/landfilling 1 kg of tea leaves?

5. Line 55. Please use the word "release" instead of "emit."

6. At the end of the introduction section, please provide a statement of the novelty of the research and its potential impact.

7. Please give more information about the clinker used in this research. What type of process is done by the Nishinihon Saiseki Co. Ltd company? Biomass or Coal combustion? 

8. Table 1. What is EC? Please provide the complete name below the Table. 

9. Please provide the chemical composition of the clinker (Al2O3, K2O, etc.) Moreover, please provide the alkaline index. 

10. Please give more information about the clinker used in this research. What type of process is done by the Nishinihon Saiseki Co. Ltd company? Biomass or Coal combustion? 

11. Lines 94-95: Please avoid providing resutls in the methodology section

12. How did the authors define the amount of clinker added to the composting process? Are there previous papers? How did the authors define the variables to analyze? 

13. Lines 250 - 264. These lines do not contribute to the discussion section since these informatiion is known by the readers interested in this topic. Thus, please reduce these lines and be more concise. 

14. Line 268-271: Please rewrite the sentence.

15. Line 285-287. Please rewrite the sentence.

16. Please add a new section, "Practical implications." This section must be addressed to explain the potential impact of the research. How can the key finding improve the environmental impact caused by the clinker and tea leaves landfilling, etc? This section must be related to the statement of novelty. 

17. At the beginning of the manuscript (abstract), the authors stated the importance of COD and root elongation as the most important indicators to be analyzed. Nevertheless, the influence of the clinker addition on these variables is not well described. Please, improve more details and quantitative information. 

18. The most important weakness of the manuscript is related to the discussion and comparison of the results. Please provide more studies on using clinker (or any other additive) to improve composting. Quantitative information is essential, not only a qualitative description and comparison. The authors must improve this aspect before manuscript acceptance. 

19. Please, rewrite the conclusions section since the current version is more of a result description. Provide quantitative information. 

20. Line 367: Please rewrite. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please revise English since there are wording issues throughout the manuscript. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate the effort and time that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for the valuable comments on our paper. Your insightful comments have led to improvements in the current version of the manuscript. We have carefully considered your comments and have addressed them meticulously. We hope that the revised manuscript meets your high standards. Please see the attached file. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Article, Acceleration of Composting by Addition of Clinker to Tea Leaves Compost, is well written, and the results are described precisely. A few suggestions are below.

1. Write the full name at first use of “chemical oxygen demand (COD)” in line 60, and then use the abbreviation “COD” in the following parts of the manuscript.

2. Authors mentioned dates of 2015; why did the authors take so long to publish this data in 2024? Any justifications?

3. Composting rate and maturity indices (and add cation exchange capacity (CEC)) need to be elaborated more clearly in this study.

4. Like Figure 5, add error bars in Figures 1-4.

5. References are too many. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate the effort and time that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for the valuable comments on our paper. Your insightful comments have led to improvements in the current version of the manuscript. We have carefully considered your comments and have addressed them meticulously. We hope that the revised manuscript meets your high standards. Please see the attached file. Thank you.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in the present form since the authors have addressed most of the changes proposed. Thanks

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your insightful feedback and constructive criticism, which greatly improved the quality of our manuscript. Your expertise and thorough review were valuable in sha** our research. We are grateful for your time and commitment to advancing scientific discourse.

Warm regards,

Prof. Hideto UENO