An Application of Ultrasonic Waves in the Pretreatment of Biological Sludge in Urban Sewage and Proposing an Artificial Neural Network Predictive Model of Concentration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors examines whether ultrasonic waves can enhance the hydrolysis, stability, and dewatering of activated sludge from raw urban wastewater. In the study, ANN algorithm is used to predict concentrations in different situations. The results show that the research methodology was designed correctly and the results are satisfactory. The ?² and MAE values of the proposed model are quite good. Figures and graphs are sufficiently descriptive to explain the essence of the article.

It would be useful for the article to be reviewed by native speakers of English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Dear Editor,

 

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my gratitude for the invitation to serve as a reviewer for Sustainability. It is an honor to be entrusted with this important responsibility for me. I am writing to submit a revision for the article titled " Developing a Rapid and Sensitive Colorimetric Sensor for Detection of Food Adulterant Rhodamine-B in Real Samples." After careful consideration and evaluation, I believe that several substantial revisions are required to enhance the quality, clarity, and overall impact of the manuscript.

 

The paper is well-written and presents valuable insights into the detection of Rh-B using BZ-EXT nanoparticles. The following strengths and recommendations should be considered:

 

*The study should addresses a critical issue of detecting a harmful food adulterant in real samples.

*The authors should emphasize the unique aspects more explicitly by comparing it to existing methods.

*To strengthen the study's results, consider obtaining SEM images of the nanoparticles and analyze their size distribution. I would greatly appreciate it if the authors could further expound upon the SEM findings. In particular, it would be immensely valuable to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the exact morphological changes observed within the sludge flocs following ultrasonic treatment across the distinct time intervals (2, 10, and 30 minutes), drawing insightful comparisons to the baseline condition (0 seconds). Moreover, the inclusion of contextual information elucidating the relationship between these changes and the concurrent reduction in particle size, along with their alignment with the referenced study, would significantly enhance the interpretation.

 

*Clarify the rationale behind selecting specific frequencies (30 kHz and 50 kHz) and durations (0.5, 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 30 minutes) for the ultrasonic treatment. 

*Please note that the original text contained only a few minor grammar errors, and the changes made above are mostly slight adjustments for improved clarity and flow. 

For example: It is possible to transfer sludge to the ground in liquid, paste, and dry

form. In transporting liquid sludge, due to the large volume of water and the need for

significant transmission networks (pipe laying or the use of tankers), it is usually uneconomical and not cost-effective [4].

* I recommend that the authors construct error models to evaluate their experimental findings and the reliability and accuracy of our predictive models.

* The conclusion should provide a concise summary of the study's key findings, their implications for wastewater treatment, and potential future research directions.

 

Once again, thank you for considering me for this role. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the scholarly community through this esteemed journal (Sustainability). I look forward to the review process and providing valuable feedback to the authors. If you have any further questions or require any additional information, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your time and support.

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

Dear Editor,

 

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my gratitude for the invitation to serve as a reviewer for Sustainability. It is an honor to be entrusted with this important responsibility for me. I am writing to submit a revision for the article titled " Developing a Rapid and Sensitive Colorimetric Sensor for Detection of Food Adulterant Rhodamine-B in Real Samples." After careful consideration and evaluation, I believe that several substantial revisions are required to enhance the quality, clarity, and overall impact of the manuscript.

 

The paper is well-written and presents valuable insights into the detection of Rh-B using BZ-EXT nanoparticles. The following strengths and recommendations should be considered:

 

*The study should addresses a critical issue of detecting a harmful food adulterant in real samples.

*The authors should emphasize the unique aspects more explicitly by comparing it to existing methods.

*To strengthen the study's results, consider obtaining SEM images of the nanoparticles and analyze their size distribution. I would greatly appreciate it if the authors could further expound upon the SEM findings. In particular, it would be immensely valuable to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the exact morphological changes observed within the sludge flocs following ultrasonic treatment across the distinct time intervals (2, 10, and 30 minutes), drawing insightful comparisons to the baseline condition (0 seconds). Moreover, the inclusion of contextual information elucidating the relationship between these changes and the concurrent reduction in particle size, along with their alignment with the referenced study, would significantly enhance the interpretation.

 

*Clarify the rationale behind selecting specific frequencies (30 kHz and 50 kHz) and durations (0.5, 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 30 minutes) for the ultrasonic treatment. 

*Please note that the original text contained only a few minor grammar errors, and the changes made above are mostly slight adjustments for improved clarity and flow. 

For example: It is possible to transfer sludge to the ground in liquid, paste, and dry

form. In transporting liquid sludge, due to the large volume of water and the need for

significant transmission networks (pipe laying or the use of tankers), it is usually uneconomical and not cost-effective [4].

* I recommend that the authors construct error models to evaluate their experimental findings and the reliability and accuracy of our predictive models.

* The conclusion should provide a concise summary of the study's key findings, their implications for wastewater treatment, and potential future research directions.

 

Once again, thank you for considering me for this role. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the scholarly community through this esteemed journal (Sustainability). I look forward to the review process and providing valuable feedback to the authors. If you have any further questions or require any additional information, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your time and support.

 

Best regards,

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The study is technically sound, but some points need to be clarified, the reviewer recommends minor revisions.

Figures 2 through 5 present bar charts without error bars. Could you please clarify whether there were repetitions in the experiment to account for this?

Have the authors analyzed the main components of the organic solids? In other words, have they identified what types of organic matter are being decomposed by the ultrasonic treatment?

In the discussion section, the authors need to further compare  with existing literature.

There is existing evidence in the literature that high-frequency treatments may hydrolyze water and generate hydroxyl radicals (.OH). I would recommend the authors consult these studies to strengthen their discussion on this topic.

When ANN models was used for prediction, more explanations (model settings, hidden layers, etc. )should be given either in the manuscript or in the supporting information.

Inconsistency in Batch Size: There is an inconsistency in the batch size mentioned within the text. Initially, it's stated as 4, and later as 41. Please verify the correct value and ensure consistency throughout the manuscript. (L275 and Table1)

Overfitting Concerns: The high accuracy of the model may lead to questions about overfitting. It would be beneficial to provide additional details on the validation strategy used to ensure the model's generalizability. Consider including information on techniques such as k-fold cross-validation, or any regularization methods that were applied to prevent overfitting.

Explanation of Model's Robustness: Given the excellent performance of the model, an expanded discussion on why the model performs so well might be insightful. This could include an examination of the complexity of the model in relation to the available data, and an exploration of the balance between fitting and generalization.

Comparison with Other Models: If applicable, a comparison of the ANN with other models or techniques could provide a broader perspective on the model's effectiveness. This could underscore the reasons for choosing the ANN and its advantages over other predictive methods.

Time Efficiency Discussion: You mentioned that the time required for the simulation of the model in Python is 5% of the experiments. It would be informative to expand on this statement, comparing not only the time efficiency but possibly also computational resources, to give a comprehensive view of the efficiency of the model.

In conclusion, the section presents an intriguing application of ANN in prediction, but addressing the above points may further solidify the work's contributions and clarity.

Language needs to be checked. e.g. Line 69, “Possible to become added to the existing facilities, low cost, and proper operation compared to other pretreatment methods.” This does not seem to be a whole sentence. Line 135-138 "In variable conditions, the increase of this parameter means that either a higher pressure is needed to filter the sludge or a larger surface is required for this purpose, both of which suggest that the sludge's resistance is more elevated and dewatering from the sludge becomes harder [23]."  

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Dear Editor,

 

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my gratitude for the invitation to serve as a reviewer for Sustainability. It is an honor to be entrusted with this important responsibility for me. I am writing to submit a revision for the article titled " An application of ultrasonic waves in the pretreatment of biological sludge in urban sewage and proposing an artificial neural network predictive model of concentration" After careful consideration and evaluation, I believe that several substantial revisions are required to enhance the quality, clarity, and overall impact of the manuscript.

 

The following strengths and recommendations should be considered:

 

*The study should addresses a critical issue of detecting a harmful food adulterant in real samples.

*The authors should emphasize the unique aspects more explicitly by comparing it to existing methods.

*To strengthen the study's results, consider obtaining SEM images of the nanoparticles and analyze their size distribution. I would greatly appreciate it if the authors could further expound upon the SEM findings. In particular, it would be immensely valuable to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the exact morphological changes observed within the sludge flocs following ultrasonic treatment across the distinct time intervals (2, 10, and 30 minutes), drawing insightful comparisons to the baseline condition (0 seconds). Moreover, the inclusion of contextual information elucidating the relationship between these changes and the concurrent reduction in particle size, along with their alignment with the referenced study, would significantly enhance the interpretation.

 

*Clarify the rationale behind selecting specific frequencies (30 kHz and 50 kHz) and durations (0.5, 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 30 minutes) for the ultrasonic treatment. 

 

* I recommend that the authors construct error models to evaluate their experimental findings and the reliability and accuracy of our predictive models.

 

Once again, thank you for considering me for this role. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the scholarly community through this esteemed journal (Sustainability). I look forward to the review process and providing valuable feedback to the authors. If you have any further questions or require any additional information, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your time and support.

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

Dear Editor,

 

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my gratitude for the invitation to serve as a reviewer for Sustainability. It is an honor to be entrusted with this important responsibility for me. I am writing to submit a revision for the article titled " An application of ultrasonic waves in the pretreatment of biological sludge in urban sewage and proposing an artificial neural network predictive model of concentration" After careful consideration and evaluation, I believe that several substantial revisions are required to enhance the quality, clarity, and overall impact of the manuscript.

 

The following strengths and recommendations should be considered:

 

*The study should addresses a critical issue of detecting a harmful food adulterant in real samples.

*The authors should emphasize the unique aspects more explicitly by comparing it to existing methods.

*To strengthen the study's results, consider obtaining SEM images of the nanoparticles and analyze their size distribution. I would greatly appreciate it if the authors could further expound upon the SEM findings. In particular, it would be immensely valuable to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the exact morphological changes observed within the sludge flocs following ultrasonic treatment across the distinct time intervals (2, 10, and 30 minutes), drawing insightful comparisons to the baseline condition (0 seconds). Moreover, the inclusion of contextual information elucidating the relationship between these changes and the concurrent reduction in particle size, along with their alignment with the referenced study, would significantly enhance the interpretation.

 

*Clarify the rationale behind selecting specific frequencies (30 kHz and 50 kHz) and durations (0.5, 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 30 minutes) for the ultrasonic treatment. 

 

* I recommend that the authors construct error models to evaluate their experimental findings and the reliability and accuracy of our predictive models.

 

Once again, thank you for considering me for this role. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the scholarly community through this esteemed journal (Sustainability). I look forward to the review process and providing valuable feedback to the authors. If you have any further questions or require any additional information, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your time and support.

 

Best regards,

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx