Research on a Novel Terminal Water Supply System Based on the Diversion Process
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGood day! The comments in the manuscript have been corrected, and all the answers to my questions are presented. Thanks.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors* The title should reflect the main purpose of this work and should be different from the senate used in the manuscript.
* Do not use the personal pronoun "we, or "I" scientific research papers because you are the writer who is solely responsible for the document.
I recommend including keywords that specifically emphasize the key aspects and unique contributions of your research
* The introduction is too large; please rewrite it following international standards.
* In the introduction, it is important to present the global-scale issues that your study addresses, followed by a specific focus on the corresponding local-scale implications.
* Drawbacks are: insufficient attention to findings of the previous researchers , no attention to data and method limitations.
* in the introduction, you must include both the general and specific objectives and don't
divide the introduction into subsection or divisions You must present the content in a logical
and well-organized manner to maintain a flow of ideas.
The methodology should be described in detail.
* The hypotheses of the research aren't clear.
* To improve this work, the English language must be revised by a native speaker. Please make a careful reading of the paper before the revisions.
There is no innovation in this work , just reapplication of well-known approaches, and generally approaches that can be upfront characterised to have similar performance.Perhaps there could have been some specific and authentic characteristic of the case study area that could highlight this work?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNeed Revision
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
The manuscript is very interesting, however, many questions arose. But I would like to focus on the main thing.
In sections 4.1.1-4.1.8 you present the disadvantages of the PDDWS system, which is logical. But after that, in section 4.2 you write about the advantages of the TDWS system, which does not convince the reader at all. It is the reviewer's opinion that instead of a general description of the advantages of TDWS, a detailed description of the advantages of TDWS over PDDWS on the same points should be provided. For example, the structural issues of PDDWS (4.1) and how these same issues are solved using your proposed TDWS system. And so on for each of the points. That is, a clear and consistent presentation of the advantages of the proposed system over one that has disadvantages. So far, the benefits have been described in general terms, which gives an incomplete idea of the advantages of the proposed TDWS system.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis work introduces a novel concept, the terminal differentiated water system (TDWS), as an alternative to the existing pipeline direct drinking water systems (PDDWS). The abstract provides a concise overview of the proposed system, outlining its advantages over PDDWS and highlighting its potential contributions to health, economy, applicability, and environmental friendliness.
I suggest adding more references in the introduction part. However, to enhance clarity, consider providing a succinct overview of PDDWS before delving into its deficiencies.
For the material and methods part, I recommend that you add statistical analyses. Likewise in the results part.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The language used is clear and concise, contributing to the overall readability of the manuscript. However, providing more specific details without sacrificing clarity would enhance the comprehensibility of the proposed TDWS.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSustainability-2723045 “Research on A New-type Terminal Differentiated Water System” Wanghu Sun, Yuning Sun, Yuan Zhang and Xiaochun Hong
This is a solid piece of work detailing an in-line water purification system installable in an individual household, that can take advantage of existing water supply infrastructure, or be used where less complex pipe networks are to be installed.
Without violating any patents, can the authors give more information about the unit itself? What is the physical size of the unit, say height and diameter, and what are the nominal flow rates for flushing (high), clean (moderate) and drinking water (low)? A quick search indicates values between 10 and 20 litres/minute are common in domestic urban situations.
Text in Figure 6 is far too small to read comfortably at 100% magnification. Perhaps use the first 3 columns to illustrate the issues of other water supply mechanisms (with larger font size) and then use text to discuss how TDWS addresses each of the issues (some already exists in the current draft on lines 400-430).
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNone
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRecommended for acceptance
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNow its better
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, corrections have been accepted.
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI suggest minimizing the number of keywords to five
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish language is good and it has been improved.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGood day! See the file, please.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have not addressed the outlined issues of the manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle is interested but the title is the paper is different from the title within system (website).
China is one of the countries with the lowest per capita water resources. Give reference?
Need more explanation to elaborate research gaps so that objectives can be prominent.
Methodology is adopted or constructed?
Discussion section is long need to precise.
Overall research is satisfactory
Comments on the Quality of English Languageneed Minor Changes
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript's quality has been substantially improved. I recommend its acceptance for publication in its present form.
