Field-Scale Constructed Floating Wetland Applied for Revitalization of a Subtropical Urban Stream in Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The below Important considerations, regarding the installation of constructed floating wetlands ecotechnology inside the watercourses, should be considered in the manuscript.

 

1. Environmental impact: Before installing constructed floating wetlands, it is crucial to assess the potential environmental impacts they may have on the watercourse and surrounding ecosystems. This includes considering the potential disruption to natural habitats, changes in water quality, and impacts on native plant and animal species.
2. Water quality improvement: One of the main objectives of constructed floating wetlands is to improve water quality by removing pollutants and excess nutrients. It is important to consider the specific water quality issues in the watercourse and design the wetlands accordingly to effectively address those issues.
3. Design and construction: The design and construction of constructed floating wetlands should be carefully planned to ensure their stability, longevity, and effectiveness. Factors such as size, shape, buoyancy, anchoring mechanisms, and choice of vegetation should be considered during this process.
4. Vegetation selection: The selection of appropriate vegetation species is crucial for the success of constructed floating wetlands.
5. Maintenance requirements: Constructed floating wetlands require regular maintenance to ensure their continued effectiveness. This may include monitoring plant growth, removing excess biomass or debris, controlling invasive species, and periodically replacing or replenishing plants.
6. Monitoring and evaluation: Once installed, it is essential to monitor the performance of constructed floating wetlands over time. This includes assessing their impact on water quality parameters (e.g., nutrient levels), biodiversity (e.g., presence of indicator species), as well as any unintended consequences or limitations that may arise.
7. Long-term sustainability: Considerations should be made to ensure the long-term sustainability of constructed floating wetlands. This includes factors such as securing necessary permits or approvals, establishing funding mechanisms for ongoing maintenance, and incorporating adaptive management strategies to address any unforeseen challenges or changes in the watercourse ecosystem.

The quality was reasonable.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for the notes and suggestions. We review all suggested points. We also include important information in the article about the design parameters, such as the resulting loading rates.
We also corrected the project HRT, whose median correct time was 1.64 h.

Please see the attachment with the merged pdf (notes + reviewed article).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors explored the performance of CFW pilot applied to lentic section of an urban stream. The topic of the MS is interesting and should be of interest to the readers of Sustainability. However, there are several issues that need to be resolved before it can be accepted for publication.

 

-The introduction is overly lengthy and lacks clear logical flow. It is recommended to rewrite it, emphasizing the novelty, scientific rigor, and significance of this research.

 

- The Results section is excessively lengthy and lacks emphasis on the key findings. It reads more like a project report. It is advised to reorganize this section to enhance readability and scientific clarity.

 

-The manuscript frequently highlights “CFW field data are still scarce”. However, based on my understanding, there is actually a considerable amount of research on CFW available. Could you please clarify the innovative aspects of your study in this context?

 

-Considering the short lifespan and often unsustainable nature of CFW, how did the authors address this challenge?

 

-Referring to the author guidelines, it's worth considering whether the inclusion of Highlights and graphical abstracts is necessary.

 

-L90-91: Please enhance the significance of this study.

 

-L140-141: It is suggested to include the years in the corresponding section.

 

-Table 1: Table 1 requires the addition of gridlines for improved clarity and readability.

 

-Figure 4: Could you please clarify the reason for displaying meteorological data until April 3rd while plant growth data is only shown until March 15th?

 

-Figure 5: Is it possible to provide data on root growth in Figure 5?

 

-Figure 10: Is Figure 10 a chart or a table? Please specify in the title or caption to ensure proper understanding by the readers.

 

-The conclusion should not reiterate the research background or similar content already present in the introduction. Instead, it should emphasize the study's findings, insights, and future prospects.

 

-Please consider enhancing the clarity of certain figures and tables to improve their readability.

 

-References. It would be best to consult the specific guidelines provided by the journal for instructions on formatting and referencing.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for the notes and suggestions. We review all suggested points. We also include important information in the article about the design parameters, such as the resulting loading rates.
We also corrected the project HRT, whose median correct time was 1.64 h.

Please see the attachment with the merged pdf (notes + reviewed article).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Editor,

Thanks for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled "Field scaled constructed floating wetland applied for revitalization of a subtropical urban stream in Brazil". The paper is overall well-written, well-structured, and clear; it qualifies the title and scope of the study. However, I believe that the manuscript is not yet ready for publication. I have several comments and suggestions for improvement.

The following are some major weaknesses that need to be addressed:

*      The English language needs more improvements to be qualified for publication.

*      The abstract should be no more than 200 words long (cf. the guide for authors).

*      The introduction section must be improved; it needs details like motivation and contributions. It would be better to explain the novelty of the manuscript in this section.

*      Many researchers involved in the topic of this paper produced a vast literature which might be interesting for the literature state of the art and discussion that is now completely ignored in the manuscript (e.g., Colares et al. 2019; Dell'Osbel et al. 2020; Pasqualini et al. 2021; Nast et al. 2022, etc.)

*      Figures: More suitable figure captions should be selected; lowercase letters should denote figure parts.

*      The paper should be prepared according to the formatting instructions; please refer to the guidelines for the authors (e.g., website citations, in-text citations, references style (cf. Brazil 2021)

References

*Dell'Osbel, N., Colares, G. S., Oliveira, G. A., Rodrigues, L. R., da Silva, F. P., Rodriguez, A. L., ... & Machado, Ê. L. (2020). Hybrid constructed wetlands for the treatment of urban wastewaters: increased nutrient removal and landscape potential. Ecological Engineering, 158, 106072.

*Nast, M. R., Colares, G. S., Machado, Ê. L., & Rodrigues, L. R. (2022). Wastewater treatment using bamboos in constructed wetlands: experiences and future perspectives. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(45), 67641-67658.

*Colares, G. S., de Souza Celente, G., da Silva, F. P., de Loreto, A. C., Lutterbeck, C. A., Kist, L. T., & Machado, Ê. L. (2019). Combined system for the treatment and reuse of urban wastewater: the efficiency of anaerobic reactors+ hybrid constructed wetlands+ ozonation. Water Science and Technology, 80(2), 254-264.

*Pasqualini, J. P., Rigotti, J. A., & Rodrigues, L. R. (2021). Performance of a constructed floating wetland in mesocosm scale: nutrient removal under shock load and water level oscillation (No. EGU21-9133). Copernicus Meetings.

The English language needs more improvements to be qualified for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for the notes and suggestions. We review all suggested points. We also include important information in the article about the design parameters, such as the resulting loading rates.
We also corrected the project HRT, whose median correct time was 1.64 h.

Please see the attachment with the merged pdf (notes + reviewed article).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version is acceptable.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have significantly revised the paper in line with my suggestions. I think the paper is ready for publication. Please note that the resolution of some figures and tables needs to be improved.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Editor,

The manuscript entitled “Field scaled constructed floating wetland applied for revitalization of a subtropical urban stream in Brazil" is significantly improved compared to its previous version. The authors have incorporated all comments and suggestions in the revised manuscript, and I have no further suggestions.

 

With kind regards,