Effect of Biochar and Process Water Derived from the Co-Processed Sewage Sludge and Food Waste on Garden Cress’ Growth and Quality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for Author,

 

I have read your paper carefully. However, I can not suggest this paper for publication because of its little novelty, poorly written, and most of the references unproperly in the introduction and discussion. Finally, this paper should be rejected with the present version.

  The highlights do not tell the exact finding of this paper. Moreover, see the word count of the highlights. They are too many words in each of them.
Abstract: The abstract is very general. There should be the main findings in this section. It is just a collection of redundant results.

Introduction: The introduction flow is not systematic. Would you please shift the 3rd paragraph to the 2nd one? Moreover, there is also a need for a section regarding the researchers' previous findings of the researchers i.e. models used before and their drawbacks.  In addition to this, This section should be merged very technically at the end of the introduction section. Ideally, it should be shortened and placed there.
Material and methods: Would you please write the whole procedure here in the material and methods section? Would you please report statistical analyses in detail? Results: The results are redundant in this section. This section is very simple and does not show any novelty. Discussion: This section is written fundamentally. You have not supported your results with the findings of the previous papers.  Tables: They need justifying of data and description. Moreover, the sizes are also small.  

Best Regards

Author Response

Sayın yorumcu,

Değerli yorumlarınız için teşekkür ederiz. Ekteki dosya, yorumlarınıza verdiğimiz yanıtları içermektedir.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled ''Biochar and Liquid Derived from Urban Waste Reduce the Use of Chemical Nitrogen in Garden Cress.''. is well written and sufficient discussion around the issue. Methods and results are well described and potentially can be published. But, there is some small points before further process. 

Title: think about a more interesting title. the current title is like a pece of report!

Line 76: P2O5, and 15 kg K2O -----> Numbers in chemical formulas should be superscript. Make sure about entire text.

Line 86: ''The disposal of sewage sludge and domestic waste is an increasing problem worldwide.''. -----> Here is a good reference that could be used to add more details about potential of global sludge producing and use it in agriculture;

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912983 

Line 155: ...company uses The... ---> ...company uses the...

Line 139: Bring also this reference here: 

https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12092106 

Line 148: Please add geographical information (latitude).

Line 182: Table 2 ---> Make the font same is text and remove raw lines from the table!

Line 184: Table 3 ---> Make the font same is text and remove raw lines from the table! 

Line 490: 100 g-1 ----> minus and number in units should be superscript. Check it across the text.

Line 552: There are two ''in addition''. Remove one of them.

References are entirely wrong! Please set them based on journal's structure.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments. The attached file contains our responses to your comments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is based on the single trial data on Biochar and Liquid Derived from Urban Waste on Garden Cress production and chemical fertilizer use. Overall the content of the manuscript is good but the writing of the manuscript is not up to mark. The major problem is the use of too many complex sentences in the manuscript and therefore, it is difficult to follow the information. In the materials and methods section, the explanation of the treatment was not done properly. The manuscript needs significant revision before publishing.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments. The attached file contains our responses to your comments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for Author, 

Author made all deserved revision, now the paper could be acceptred for the publication.

Best Regards

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

In the revised manuscript, the authors carefully addressed the raised questions and concerns. Overall the manuscript reads well, has clarity, and communicates the work of the authors. In my opinion, this manuscript is suitable for publication in this Journal.