Review of an manuscript submitted to the conference

Article’s title
Does the paper match the scope of the conference?
Yes
Does the paper title reflect the content and purpose of the article?
Yes
Was the aim of the work clearly defined and successfully accomplished?
Yes
Does the paper embrace contemporary issues in the area?
Yes
Is the paper clearly written and easily understood?
Understood with effort
Do conclusions illustrate the research results, findings, and recommendations, providing suggestions for future research?
Partially
Are the references full and grounded?
Partially
Remarks and suggestions to the authors of the article

1. Clarify the novelty and aim of the study.
Although the topic is relevant and timely, I recommend more clearly defining the novelty of the research and the specific aim of the study in the introduction. It would be helpful to explicitly indicate how this work advances or differs from existing approaches to biogas purification and enhancement.

2. Improve the structure and clarity of the manuscript.
In my opinion, certain sections (particularly the methodology and discussion) require clearer wording and more logical transitions. I suggest simplifying long sentences and defining technical terms upon first use to improve the text’s readability.

3. Revise and update the references.
I noted that several references are either outdated or incomplete. I recommend including more recent sources (preferably from the last 5 years) published in high-impact journals and ensuring all citations are consistent and complete in format (including full titles, journal names, years, volumes, pages, and DOIs if available).

I confirm that there is no conflict of interest regarding the reviewed paper
I confirm that I have the appropriate expertise to review this paper