Average rating: | Rated 2 of 5. |
Level of importance: | Rated 2 of 5. |
Level of validity: | Rated 2 of 5. |
Level of completeness: | Rated 2 of 5. |
Level of comprehensibility: | Rated 2 of 5. |
Competing interests: | None |
This was a potentially important and interesting article addressing possible wasy of dealing with an intractable waste product.
Two very detailed reviews were provided for the original preprint. These reviews were consistent with one another. They raised a large number of points that needed to be addressed. These detailed methodological, observational and analytical issues (both in terms of both GCMS analysis of materials and the statistics).
The authors have not been able to address all the points raised in a manner that impoves the paper
In addition, there are parts of the text of the version 2 preprint (for example around line 185) that are not consistent with the data shown in the figure to which the text refers.
This means this draft paper cannot go forward to full publication and may well be rejected as there remains a lot of its content to revise.