The tutorial review proposed by the authors, titled “From source to use - cellulose biomass processing strategies and opportunities for materials applications,” aims to cover all aspects of cellulose, from production to properties and final material applications. The topic is timely and highly relevant, and the manuscript includes particularly strong sections on bacterial cellulose, additive manufacturing, and cellulose properties. However, the current title does not fully reflect the actual content, as several areas are insufficiently covered. As a result, the review appears unbalanced and, in its present form, reads more as a focused review on bacterial-derived CNC and CNF for additive manufacturing rather than a comprehensive tutorial.
1. The content should be further developed to better align with the scope implied by the title.
2. The structure and headings of the first part require substantial revision to improve clarity and pedagogical value. For example, the section on “controlled depolymerization of lignocellulose” is conceptually unclear; many of the processes described, such as alkali treatment, Brønsted acid treatment, oxidative methods, and organosolv processes, do not primarily involve depolymerization. Instead, they often include hemicellulose hydrolysis, lignin bond cleavage (frequently followed by recondensation), and, most importantly, lignin solubilization. This distinction should be clearly articulated.
3. The separation between Brønsted and Lewis acids is not well justified. The manuscript should clarify whether this distinction is based on mechanistic differences or simple classification, as the chemical rationale is currently unclear.
4. The emphasis on lignin solubilization in ionic liquids and deep eutectic solvents (DES) may give the misleading impression that such solubilization does not occur under alkaline, organosolv, or acidic conditions. This should be corrected.
5. The discussion of oxidative methods without corresponding coverage of reductive approaches creates an imbalance. Reductive biomass fractionation, including methods such as reductive catalytic fractionation (RCF), should be included, particularly given its ability to produce high-purity cellulose in high yields.
6. In the section on emerging solvents, hydrotropes should be at least briefly mentioned alongside DES and ionic liquids.
7. The early sections would benefit from a more coherent conceptual framework, for instance by organizing the discussion around mechanisms such as biomass parts dissolution.
8. Statements claiming that a topic has not been covered in previous reviews should be avoided, as the novelty of the present review should be evident from its scope and synthesis.
9. Lignin should not be described as a cross-linked polymer; if needed, it can be referred to as a branched polymer.
10. Although the manuscript notes the importance of valorizing both lignin and cellulose, several modern approaches already demonstrated at pilot scale are not discussed and should be incorporated. For example: (1) Yuhe Liao et al. ,A sustainable wood biorefinery for low–carbon footprint chemicals production.Science367,1385-1390(2020).DOI:10.1126/science.aau1567 (2) Liu, ZH., Hao, N., Wang, YY. et al. Transforming biorefinery designs with ‘Plug-In Processes of Lignin’ to enable economic waste valorization. Nat Commun 12, 3912 (2021). https://doi-org.ezproxy.its.uu.se/10.1038/s41467-021-23920-4 (3) Manker, L.P., Dick, G.R., Demongeot, A. et al. Sustainable polyesters via direct functionalization of lignocellulosic sugars. Nat. Chem. 14, 976–984 (2022). https://doi-org.ezproxy.its.uu.se/10.1038/s41557-022-00974-5
11. The statement regarding sulfuric acid leading to the formation of furfural and HMF is misleading; the formation of such furanic compounds depends strongly on reaction conditions, particularly acid concentration, rather than simply the presence of a particular acid, and should be rephrased accordingly.
12. The term “black liquor” should be reserved for the Kraft process.
13. Key terms such as DES should be clearly defined.
14. Figure 1 does not add substantial value and could be omitted.
15. Table 3 lacks a clear purpose; it is not evident why the structures of ionic liquids are presented, nor why there is inconsistency between those shown and those discussed in the text. This table should be reconsidered and refined.
16. The manuscript should avoid referring to non-covalent modifications as “physical treatments,” as this term is more appropriately used for processes such as heating, sonication, or grinding.
17. The concept of fibrillation should be explicitly defined.
18. As this is intended to be a tutorial review, the absence of visual representations of CNC, CNF, BNC, and microfibrils is a limitation; a figure comparing their structures and size scales would be highly beneficial.
19. The section on drying nanocellulose suspensions requires clarification, particularly regarding temperature dependence and whether conflicting trends exist in the literature.
20. The discussion of hydrolysis should be more precise, distinguishing between the production of platform molecules such as glucose or ethanol and their downstream conversion into fuels or materials.
21. Page 29 “Common types.... and b-b bonds.” B-b bond is one of the most difficult to cleave in lignin. It is definitely not commonly cleavable (signals often are not observed in NMR for instance but due to the different reason)., and should therefore be removed or revised.
22. The section“ Impurities Commonly Present in Cellulose” and Table 4 on impurities in cellulose are currently uneven and potentially misleading. Lignin-derived byproducts are not uniquely associated with specific processes but depend strongly on feedstock and conditions. A more unified and chemically meaningful classification of impurities, including clear definitions (e.g., phenolics and their subclasses), is recommended. For instance ferulic acid formation depends on biomass type and not on the process as is, and if forming very easy with both acid and base and even neutral hydrolysis, why is vanillic acid in organosolv and not in the wet oxidation and so on. Organosolv, Acid hydrolysis and wet oxidations by products will strongly depends on conditions and biomass. I do recommend combining them and also have them on the same level – what is phenolics? Does phenolics with carbonyl group for steam explosion includes vanillic acid and so on. The same is true for Hemicellulose and other residues.
23. More broadly, the discussion of impurities appears to reflect the selection of references rather than a systematic comparison of processes, and should be reconsidered accordingly.
24. The section on intrinsic inorganic waste and process-derived residues is difficult to follow for non-specialists and should more clearly explain where specific contaminants originate and at which stages of processing they are introduced.
25. Classical cellulose dissolution processes such as rayon and lyocell should be briefly discussed to provide context.
26. In the section on tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, it should be noted that cellulose is not metabolizable in the human body, which limits its applicability in certain implantable scaffold approaches where biodegradability within body is required.
27. In the discussion of drug delivery, the connection to additive manufacturing and personalized drug administration should be made explicit.
28. Figure 5 should be generalized to include alternative pathways from HMF and furfural to fuels, including aviation fuels, and should avoid unnecessary specificity. Enzymatic hydrolysis pathways could also be incorporated.
29. The section on cellulose-based composites is currently heavily skewed toward additive manufacturing at the expense of other applications and should be rebalanced.
30. The inclusion of starch-, chitosan-, and alginate-based materials detracts from the focus on cellulose and should be removed.
31. Figure 6 appears to be inconsistently referenced and labeled, as it is introduced in the context of general composite matrices but presented as specific to 3D printing. This inconsistency should be resolved.
32. The conclusion should synthesize the content of the review itself and does not require additional references. Please remove them.
33. Sustainability and other aspects of green chemistry are not discussed in the review specifically that in many applications chemical post treatment and modification is desired

Taking into account made revision I recommend this manuscript be considered for publication. The revised titel, redesigned manuscript structure structure, and newly paragraphs added improve the overall flow and broaden the scope. These changes provide better context making this tutorial review accessible to non-specialist in the field.