Recent Advancements and Strategies of Improving CO₂ Utilization Efficiency in Bio-Succinic Acid Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are several instances where incorrect phrasing/grammar leads to confusion for the reader. I recommend an English language editing service be used for this manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Major revision

This paper deals with CO₂ fixation pathways and the conversion of CO₂ to succinic acid (SA). Various CO₂ fixation pathways are first defined with specific focus on r-TCA cycle. Furthermore, the key problems for SA production are discussed. Finally, relative research to improve and enhance CO₂ utilization and supply are introduced (intracellular and extracellular, respectively), while potential strategies for CO₂ fixation efficiency improvements and synthesis of SA are analyzed.

The paper certainly meets the aim and the scope, as well as, the high academic standards of the ‘Fermentation’ Journal. However, the following specific improvements should be made, before accepting the paper for possible publication to the Journal.

In general, some sentences are very long (e.g., 117-21, 165-170...) and may be difficult for the reader to follow. In the introduction section, in lines 52-60, I claim that it would be interesting to provide some results regarding the cost (e.g., cost reduction). In the end of the same section (introduction), the authors should also provide a clear and concise understanding of the primary contribution of their manuscript. In Section 2, in lines 72-82, the authors could move the description of “β-CA” prior to “γ-CA”. In addition, some references are formatted as superscript (e.g., chapter 4.1). Finally, in the conclusions section, the knowledge gap the paper is filling, as well as, strongly recommendations for future researchers should be also provided.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please seee the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made a strong effort to address my comments, and I appreciate their detailed response.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are still a few minor mistakes (e.g., "researches" is incorrect on p. 10; it should say "research"), but it does not affect the readability of the paper.

Author Response

Please see  the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the comments have been addressed and the paper has been improved. However, the following minor changes should be addressed before the paper is accepted for potential publication in the journal.

Please re-read and fix the sentence in line 220-222.

In lines 270-284 the authors could use the same format as previous i.e., (for example) instead of writing “it was reported…[76]”, they could write “in the work of Guo et al….”.

Please do not use first person (we) in the text (conclusion section, line 416).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx