Study on the Relationship between Different Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Effluent Standards in Jilin Liaohe River Basin Based on the Coupled Model of AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Method
, Feihu Sun 1,2,3 and Zhaoyang Li 1,2,3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review report of article sustainability-2087115
In brief, the paper titled “Study on the relationship between different wastewater treatment technologies and effluent standards in Jilin Liaohe River Basin based on the coupled model of AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS method”
(a) is an exciting work;
(b) proposes a well-known method combination of MCDM methods for evaluating wastewater treatment technologies;
(c) applies the selected methodological approaches solidly;
(d) fits the journal’s scope and standards.
General findings related to the manuscript
The rest of the reviewer’s comments focus on the possibility of more significant impacts on the research community. However, there will also be some essential methodological and structural comments. Although the manuscript has potential, it has some weak points in its present form.
The detailed comments following the structure of the manuscript are presented in the following:
(1) Introduction section
The manuscript does not shoot a single but essential shot in the introduction section. When positioning the article, the manuscript poorly refers to international standards, relevant international committees, NGO reports, etc. The manuscript focuses on the wastewater treatment evaluation problem, which should be positioned more as a global-scale environmental problem. Referring to the most critical standards, review research, and state-of-the-art and putting the manuscript in a more profound and penetrating manner to the context would show a return in the future impact of the article. Please refer in the text to at least the following reports and articles, and refer more intensively to the manuscript’s topic as a global scale problem related to GHG emission.
https://doi.org/10.35551/PFQ_2022_3_4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116437
(2) lines 46-56.
Please try to refer directly to all the emissions of the wastewater plants according to the GHG Protocol’s Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3. (Not just simply as direct and indirect ones).
(3) Introduction section
Please divide the Introduction section to two subsections. One subsection is for the introduction of the “green” aspects of the paper, one section is for the introduction of the “decision sciences” aspects of the paper.
(4) lines 65-88.
Although the manuscript is linked well to the wastewater treatment topic, the theoretical foundations and background of the MCDM methods are weakly performed. The state-of-the-art introduction related to the MCDM universe is missing but at least the state-of-the-art of AHP-TOPSIS applications is also missing. Please introduce, why AHP-TOPSIS was applied for the assessment technique. Please introduce in which fields have been AHP-TOPSIS applied in other research. Please introduce some advantages of the application of APH-TOPSIS instead of other methods like BWM-TOPSIS, or AHP-VIKOR, or otheir combinations. The aim would be to identify clearly: What is the methodological novelty in the application selection?
Please refer to at least the following articles and reviews for establishing a solid MCDM background for the manuscript:
https://doi.org/10.1201/b11032 https://doi.org/10.3390/risks10110213
(5) lines 68-78
This entire section is one sentence. Thus, it is so hard to read. Please split this huge sentence into a couple of sentences.
(6) line 148
Please change “Satie” to “Saaty”.
(7) line 197
Please explain shortly in the text, why triangular fuzzy numbers are applied in the manuscript instead of other options.
(8) Results and discussion section
This section should be renamed as “Case study”. This section can not be a “result section” since, in section 3.1, input variables are introduced… Renaming the section to “Case study” or similar is an efficient way of restructuring. Based on the reviewer’s opinion, 2.1 subsection also belongs to a “case study section”, since the area overview is also introduced there… In the present form of the manuscript, there is no real discussion in the study, since the 3.6 subsection is the last one, and it is about the results. Please also introduce the data collection procedure in this section: who, when, and how made the evaluation, etc.)
(9) Discussion
According to (8), a short Discussion section should be added to the manuscript. Since the manuscript does not mention in detail the limitations of the completed research, please also discuss the limitations here shortly. Please mention more future research plans according to the wastewater treatment topic and/or methodological development options for the proposed evaluation process. (for example, future research plans can eliminate some addressed limitations.)
(10) Conclusion section
Please provide a clear essence of the work in the conclusion section. What are the most important outcomes that would be interesting to the readers and the research community?
Overall proposal to the Editor:
The manuscript has significant potential, but in its present form, it has some weaknesses. The reviewer suggests major changes based on the previously written comments.
2022.11.28.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this study, four different wastewater treatment technologies, namely A2/O, CASS, MBR and A/O-MBR, which are mainly operated in the Liaohe River basin of Jilin Province, were selected using the coupled AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS models, and the appropriate effluent standards were preferred according to the characteristics of these technologies. And there are some questions concerning this paper:
1. Please clarify the main contributions in this paper. Could you please summarize three points (more or less) of your contribution? It is highly recommended that you show in a table the novelty of the proposed method compared to the existing method.
2. In the Introduction, the author needs to add a description of paragraph and chapter arrangement.
3. Is the proposed method universally applicable to other regions in China?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. In the introduction, the authors devote a lot of length to the problems of high energy consumption and greenhouse gases generated during the operation of conventional wastewater treatment plants. However, there is relatively little introduction to the two models used in this study, which I think is what the authors should focus on introducing to the reader.
(1) Introduction should supplement the characteristics and current application fields of AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS coupling method, and why the authors chose these two models for this evaluation.
(2) Introduce the novelty of the AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS coupling method compared with others models at the end of the introduction section.
(3) Regarding AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS coupling method, it's not clear what has been utilized from the existing work and what is new (proposed by the authors). It should be clearly discussed.
2. In the “Materials and Methods”. Remake Figures 1 and 2 to make the text in them clearer. And, please note that other images in the main text have similar problems.
3. There are some minor issues here that need to be confirmed and corrected by the author:
(1) Line 31, “NH4-N” should be changed to “NH3-N”.
(2) Line 108-109, the “,” between the first and second sentences of the paragraph should be changed to “.”.
(3) Line 128-132, confirm that “GB/18918-2002” and “GB18/918-2002” are consistent.
(4) Line 161 and line 174, add the serial number before the subheading.
(5) In the “3.4. Options and attribute values”, please make sure there is only one Table 9.
(6) Line 453-454, “five different grades: good, better, medium, poor, and poor.”
(7) In the “3.5. Indicator values”, please make sure there is only one Table 10.
4. In the Conclusion, please summarize the important conclusions of this paper in concise terms.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript entitled "Study on the relationship between different wastewater treatment technologies and effluent standards in Jilin Liaohe River Basin based on the coupled model of AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS method" assessed different wastewater treatment technologies based on AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Below are a few suggestions for improvement:
1. Abstract should be standalone and hence all abbreviations should be introduced.
2. Please check Table 3 alignment. The quality of figure 3 should be improved.
3. The authors are advised to highlight the novelty of the work. AHP is a well-known technique for decision-making. What is the implication of AHP in this work? Besides, why was TOPSIS included?
4. Discussion should be improved by including the choice of wastewater treatment based on different criteria.
5. A concise conclusion is preferable.
6. The authors are advised to proofread the manuscript to ensure grammatical error free. Besides, all abbreviations should be introduced during their first appearance in text.
Thank you.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author reflected on all the reviewer's comments, and in general, the paper improved significantly. After a fine spell check, the reviewer suggests publishing the manuscript in Sustainability.
Reviewer 2 Report
good.
