Use of Wastewater and Electrogenic Bacteria to Generate Eco-Friendly Electricity through Microbial Fuel Cells

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors of the manuscript "Use of wastewater and electrogenic bacteria to generate ecological electricity through microbial fuel cells," I want to mention that your work is good. However, the following corrections must be made to be considered for publication:
1. Line 32 "2" set as superscript
2. Line 73 is MFCs or MCCs?
3. Line 90, what does CCM mean? not previously defined
4. Line 120. The title of the section begins with a capital letter
5. 136. It is well written Ste-notrophomobes
6. Line 141. The title of the area starts with a capital letter
7. Improve the resolution of figures 1, 2 and 3 since they are tough to observe the results
8. The format of the references must be reviewed within the manuscript to be consistent with the format of the journal
9. Conclusion. Check since there are units of the values obtained that are not well written
10. All scientific names of microorganisms must be placed in italics

Good luck

Author Response

Dear colleague, the authors appreciate the comments made to improve the manuscript.
The suggested changes were made and each of the comments was answered:

1. Line 32 "2" set as superscript

Ans. Corrected

2. 
   Line 73 is MFCs or MCCs?

Ans. Translation error, MCC and CCM actually stands for MFC. It was corrected.

3. 
   Line 90, what does CCM mean? not previously defined

Translation error, MCC and CCM actually stands for MFC. It was corrected

4. 
   Line 120. The title of the section begins with a capital letter

Ans. Correccted

5. 
   136. It is well written Ste-notrophomobes

Ans. Corrected

6. 
   Line 141. The title of the area starts with a capital letter

Ans. Corrected

7. 
   Improve the resolution of figures 1, 2 and 3 since they are tough to observe the results

Ans. Corrected

8. 
   The format of the references must be reviewed within the manuscript to be consistent with the format of the journal

Ans. Corrected

9. 
   Conclusion. Check since there are units of the values obtained that are not well written

Ans. Checked

10. 
    All scientific names of microorganisms must be placed in italics

Ans. Corrected

kind regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Please revise the introduction to emphasize the work's original contribution, and also the scientific issue the study addresses, and the research gap/problem found.

Please highlight the novelty of the manuscript.

Line 77-86: some written words in blue colour, bold and others underlined! 

What is the difference between the abbreviation CCM & MCC? Please unify them and write the full description in the first appearance in the manuscript.

Please draw a schematic for CCM/MCC including full details of the cell.

Please justify selecting S. maltophilia, A. cerevisiae, and A. xylosoxidans strains.

Line 151: "the identity percentages being 99 93%, 99.93%, and 99.32% respectively". Please correct the sentence.

English language, style and grammar should be checked.

 I encourage you to state the potential application of the new work. The reader gets a better impression of the future application of this technique.

Was any uncertainty analysis carried out for the work?

Recommend future scope of the study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moderate editing of the English language is required, in addition to a grammar check.

Author Response

Dear colleague, the authors appreciate the comments made to improve the manuscript.
The suggested changes were made and each of the comments was answered:

Please review the introduction to emphasize the work's original contribution, and also the scientific issue the study addresses, and the research gap/problem found.
Ans. What was indicated in the introduction was included.

Please highlight the novelty of the manuscript.
Ans. What was indicated in the introduction was included.

Line 77-86: some written words in blue colour, bold and others underlined!
Ans. Corrected
What is the difference between the abbreviation CCM & MCC? Please unify them and write the full description in the first appearance in the manuscript.
Ans. Translation error, MCC and CCM actually stands for MFC. It was corrected.

Please draw a schematic for CCM/MCC including full details of the cell.
Ans. Done (Figure 1)
Please justify selecting S. maltophilia, A. cerevisiae, and A. xylosoxidans strains.
Ans. Line 151: "the identity percentages being 99 93%, 99.93%, and 99.32% respectively". Please correct the sentence.
Ans. Corrected
English language, style and grammar should be checked.
Ans. checked
  I encourage you to state the potential application of the new work. The reader gets a better impression of the future application of this technique.
Ans. The applications of the technique were placed at the end of the conclusions.
Was any uncertainty analysis carried out for the work?
Ans. The mean and standard deviation were found.
Recommend future scope of the study.
Ans. They were placed at the end of the conclusions

kind regards

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper titled" Use of wastewater and electrogenic bacteria to generate eco-friendly electricity through microbial fuel cells" is showing a good effort by the authors, however, it still needs some editing and minor revision to be suitable for publication in the journal, the authors have to do the following:

1- In the introduction section, from lines 77 to 82 the formatting of the paragraph must be the same, underline words must be removed.

2- All given figures and plots must be more clear, the authors should increase the resolution of all images.

3- At least the author must show a schematic representation of the preparation process, and test rig.

4- In the conclusion section, the author must mention the limitations, challenges, and future perspectives of this work. 

 

 

The whole paper needs to well checked and there are some small mistakes and errors that exist they have to correct it.

 

Author Response

Dear colleague, the authors appreciate the comments made to improve the manuscript.
The suggested changes were made and each of the comments was answered:

1- In the introduction section, from lines 77 to 82 the formatting of the paragraph must be the same, underline words must be removed.
Ans. Corrected
2- All given figures and plots must be more clear, the authors should increase the resolution of all images.
Ans. All graphics have been improved
3- At least the author must show a schematic representation of the preparation process, and test rig.
Ans. The schematization of the cells was placed, making a schematization of the process would take up too much space; and it would be against those suggested by another reviewer.
4- In the conclusion section, the author must mention the limitations, challenges, and future perspectives of this work.
Ans. The suggestions were included in the conclusions.
kind regards

Reviewer 4 Report

Line 41. fossil fuels, which generate pollution --> fossil fuels, which generate air pollution

Line 42. greenhouse gases such as carbon --> greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO₂)

Line. 56. produce reduced compounds. What does it mean?

Line 73. MCCs --> MFCs ? Which one is right?

Line 88. Abbreviate what is CCM?

Why do you use Cu and Zn as electrodes? This resembles a general voltaic cell which leads to Zn oxidation. How do you prevent this? Which one use as cathode/anode?

 

All graphical figures are terribly bad quality. Pleas enhances the visibility and quality.

Include the wastewater characteristics used in this study such as pH, conductivity, type of organic matter etc

Moderate English changes are required e\speacilly in the introduction

 

Author Response

Dear colleague, the authors appreciate the comments made to improve the manuscript.
The suggested changes were made and each of the comments was answered:

Line 41. fossil fuels, which generate pollution --> fossil fuels, which generate air pollution
Ans. Corrected
Line 42. greenhouse gases such as carbon --> greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2)
And. Corrected
Line. 56. produces reduced compounds. What does it mean?
And. checked. What was meant is that molecules were formed by a process of reduction
Line 73. MCCs --> MFCs ? Which one is right?
Ans. Translation error, MCC and CCM actually stands for MFC. It was corrected.
Line 88. Abbreviate what is CCM?
Ans. Translation error, MCC and CCM actually stands for MFC. It was corrected.

Why do you use Cu and Zn as electrodes? This resembles a general voltaic cell which leads to Zn oxidation. How do you prevent this? Which one use as cathode/anode?
Ans. The selection of the electrodes is due to the fact that in previous works good results were obtained using other types of waste as subtractions. Copper was the anode and zinc the cathode, for future work a coating with carbon will be carried out to prevent the corrosion observed in the experiments.
All graphic figures are terribly bad quality. Please enhance the visibility and quality.
Ans. All graphics have been improved
Include the wastewater characteristics used in this study such as pH, conductivity, type of organic matter etc.
Ans. In this study, these characteristics have not been determined, so the analysis of these parameters in future works is recommended.

 

kind regards

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editor, I would like to inform you that the authors of the manuscript "Use of wastewater and electrogenic bacteria to generate ecological electricity through microbial fuel cells" that satisfactorily made each and every one of the observations made in their manuscript, in addition to taking into account comments thereon The manuscript in its current form may be accepted for publication

Author Response

Dear colleague, thank you very much for the comment made.
Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Instead, the authors tried to enhance the quality of the manuscript, but the answers of the authors to my first comments are not satisfactory. 

Please review the introduction to emphasize the work's original contribution, and also the scientific issue the study addresses, and the research gap/problem found

Please highlight the novelty of the manuscript at the end of the introduction section.

Please justify selecting S. maltophilia, A. cerevisiae, and A. xylosoxidans strains.

.Moderate editing of the English language required

Author Response

Dear colleague, I hope you are doing well.
Thank you very much for the comments made, the authors responded to the comments made:
Instead, the authors tried to improve the quality of the manuscript, but the authors' responses to my first comments are not satisfactory.
Revise the introduction to emphasize the original contribution of the paper, and also the scientific topic that the study addresses, and the research gap/problem found.
Ans. It was written as recommended. Lines 122-123
Highlight the novelty of the manuscript at the end of the introduction section.
Ans. It was written as recommended. Lines 134-136

Justify the selection of the strains of S. maltophilia, A. cerevisiae and A. xylosoxidans.
Ans. It was written as recommended. Lines 93-97

 

kind regards

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript satisfactorily. Therefore, the paper can be accepted in its present form.

 

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear colleague, thank you very much for the comment made.
Best regards

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made an attempt to improve the overall quality of the manuscript; however, their responses to my initial comments were deemed unsatisfactory. This is maybe due to the language barrier. The manuscript will not be recommended if the authors do not answer my comments. 

Please kindly review the introduction section with an emphasis on highlighting the original contribution of the work, as well as the scientific issue that the study aims to address, along with the identified research gap or problem.

In conclusion, it is imperative to underscore the distinctiveness and originality of the manuscript within the context of the introduction section.

The rationale for selecting strains of S. maltophilia, A. cerevisiae, and A. xylosoxidans 

Moderate editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Dear colleague, I hope you are well.
The authors have improved what was requested in the comments made. The responses to each of the suggestions are given below:
Please kindly review the introduction section with an emphasis on highlighting the original contribution of the work, as well as the scientific issue that the study aims to address, along with the identified research gap or problem.
Ans. Lines 93-96, line 100-106 and line 138-144 were added.
In conclusion, it is imperative to understand the distinctiveness and originality of the manuscript within the context of the introduction section.
Ans. The improvement was made on line 392-399
The rationale for selecting strains of S. maltophilia, A. cerevisiae, and A. xylosoxidans
Ans. Comments were made on line 93 -106.

I hope the improvements have been to your liking.
kind regards