High Average Low No Answer Originality / Novelty ( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Significance of Content ( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Quality of Presentation ( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Scientific Soundness ( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Interest to the readers ( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Overall Merit ( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Overall Recommendation ( ) Accept in present form (x) Accept after minor revision ( ) Reconsider after major revision ( ) Reject English Language and Style ( ) English language and style are fine (x) Minor spell check required ( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required ( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English Language and Style Comments and Suggestions for Authors This is a good article with interesting approach and useful results.

It lacks a citation in its introduction to:

Andersen O (2013) Consequential Life Cycle Environmental Impact Assessment. In: Unintended Consequences of Renewable Energy. Problems to be Solved. Springer London, London, pp 35–45.

In that reference it is shown that second-generation bioethanol are not necessarily better for the environment, in the case of a sugar mill attempting to sell its bagasse, to an advanced bioethanol producer. Contributional life cycle assessment (cLCA) was conducted for seven scenarios, ranging from status quo, where no bagasse is diverted, to 100 % bagasse diversion, covering GWP, non-renewable energy use, aquatic eutrophication and terrestrial acidification. A basic financial analysis of the proposed scenarios showed that they are realistic, with potentially lucrative returns. However, cLCA results showed that diverting bagasse without efficiency improvements from its current use to an ethanol biorefinery would backfire for all environmental impact categories studied. The base case outperformed all the other scenarios, with the 100 % bagasse diversion scenario being the worst.

Line 14, 15:

"(F.L.)" must be explained

Line 90:

"green and blue water footprints" must be explained/defined

Line 111:

"life cycle environmental impact (LCIA)" is not correct. Explain the "A" in "LCIA"

Line 111:

"one LCIA impact" is overkill ("impact" used twice, as "I" in "LCIA" and as "impact")

Line 118-119:

"environmental sustainability metric" must be explained/defined

Line 125:

BLM already exlained in line 124. Replace "Biomass Logistic Model (BLM)" with "BLM"

Line 140:

"sustainable harvest yield" must be explained/defined

Line 177:

"sustainably harvested" must be explained/defined

Line 323:

Remove page break

Line 327:

Insert space before bracket in "Pourhashem et al.[25]"

High Average Low No Answer Originality / Novelty ( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Significance of Content ( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Quality of Presentation ( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Scientific Soundness ( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Interest to the readers ( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Overall Merit ( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Overall Recommendation ( ) Accept in present form (x) Accept after minor revision ( ) Reconsider after major revision ( ) Reject English Language and Style ( ) English language and style are fine (x) Minor spell check required ( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required ( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English Language and Style Comments and Suggestions for Authors Except for two errors, it is OK. The errors are both in line175. "Anderson" should be corrected to "Andersen" and "[17] should be corrected to [3].

Comments for Editors (will not be revealed to authors) Except for two errors, it is OK. The errors are both in line175. "Anderson" should be corrected to "Andersen" and "[17] should be corrected to [3].