I have been asked to provide an adjudicative review. Overall I think the paper is suitable for the journal. I recommend that the authors address several of the comments described by the previous reviewer and include more background about the literature references to make furoic acid. They should discuss they should discuss advantage/disadvantage of their approach compared to the literature. They should also discuss more about the amine recycle and describe how they do this.

The authors should also provide more details about their process in the body of the paper. They should report the output of their plant in kton/year which are units commonly used in the chemical industry. They should provide the economic assumptions they used for their analysis in the body of the paper. For the minimum selling price approach they should only calculate the price of furoic acid. It doesn't make sene to talk about the minimum selling price of sodium sulphate or amine oxide as these will be byproducts. How the paper is currently written it is very hard to follow exactly what was doen in the economic analysis. They should also report the price of their raw materials and the current selling price of any byproducts. They should also report their capital costs and more clearly show the economic and LCA analysis. One thing I am not clear on is if their process simulation assumes that they are doing the reaction in continjuous flow reactors. All the experiments were done in small scale batch reactors so it is not clear how accurate the simulations will be. I would also want to see a better process flow diagram and the material balance tables in the SOI of the processes. I really cannot follow Figures S3-S5. Please also note you have two Figure S4 in the SI. n Figure 4 they should show the alkyl feed to produce the alkyl furoate and the byproducts from esterification. They also need to describe how they came up with the amine oxide recovery and sodium sulphate recovery system.

In the conclusion they say "we optimized a process." Technically they are not doing optimization of a process which has a precise mathematical meaning. I suggest they say, "we have designed a process..."

The authors have made the necessary changes and I recommend acceptance. My only comments are that there are too many significant figures in the cost estimates in the SI. I recommend that the authors truncate some of these numbers. They should also right justify the tables.