Biolysed Sludge Composting for Nitrogen Conservation and Humification Improvements and Mechanisms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The weak points cited below:

In the abstract, more results should be added.

In the Introduction, the novelty is still limited in the Introduction, and the author should state the previous studies on the composting of biolysed sludge, to give the comparison with the present research.

In the Materials and methods, a diagram of the compost reactor should be added.

In the Results and discussion, the quality of the figure should be improved, such as Fig.1, Fig. 3. The results obtained in the manuscript are detailed, but the discussion is too weak, just the description of data. So please enhance the discussion of the results based on the data and the characteristics.

More conclusions obtained in the results should be added in the Conclusion.

The references seems too many, pleased check.

The weak points cited below:

In the abstract, more results should be added.

In the Introduction, the novelty is still limited in the Introduction, and the author should state the previous studies on the composting of biolysed sludge, to give the comparison with the present research.

In the Materials and methods, a diagram of the compost reactor should be added.

In the Results and discussion, the quality of the figure should be improved, such as Fig.1, Fig. 3. The results obtained in the manuscript are detailed, but the discussion is too weak, just the description of data. So please enhance the discussion of the results based on the data and the characteristics.

More conclusions obtained in the results should be added in the Conclusion.

The references seems too many, pleased check.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General concept comments:

Introduction should be rewritten and organized more logically to better show the importance and significance of this research.

The experimental design of this study is reasonable and feasible.

Conclusions should be stated more concisely and clearly. 

Many typos throughout the manuscript

Abstract

1. It suggested to add a short problem statement because the first sentences are too general to address the direction of this study.

2. Methodology is fairly unclear, should be written in short and concise.

3. Major findings and contribution should be included in this section.

Introduction:

1.The introduction is not well organized. The authors should review the advance, challenges and unsolved problems in this field and state the importance and novelty of this study. And the comparison with other studies can be placed in the results and discussion section.

2. In my opinion, this section is not critical when referring to the title of manuscript.

3. No critical review found on large scale application from the previous study.

3. Toward the end of this section, it is recommended to include  previous related research work and has to be critically discussed.

4. pls explain with some consistent keywords (in abstract, intro ,and conclusion) to show gap in knowledge.

Materials and research method

1. abbreviation is to be defined at first mentioned` in text

2. for this section - Missing Reference on methods used

 

Result and Discussion

1. it is suggested to add standard deviation or standard error where applicable

2. The figures are too small and require touched up

3. The author should include the explanation (summary)ion  on what is the recommended or state of the sludge produce from the newly developed method.

4.Discussion on the NPK ratio should also be included to reflect the application /reaction in fertilizer.

5. Data Presentation of this manuscript, must be improved.

 

Conclusion

Can be improved with more info and concise content to highlight the outcome of study.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has addressed the comments and suggestions accordingly.  Excellent job.