Staircase Wetlands for the Treatment of Greywater and the Effect of Greywater on Soil Microbes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper addresses grey water treatment with staircase wetlands. It is somehow interesting topic. However, the manuscript is too long and the knowledge gap or hypothesis is not clearly described, especially the new findings of this study is not clearly summarized. Moreover, the description of "soil biodiversity" in the title is not specific and accurate. In the text, the author should check such kind of problems. Generally, I suggest that the paper should be resubmitted after great condensation. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for the feedback on our original research paper, appreciate the comments, and have implemented the advice given to improve the quality of the manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study, a potential off-grid system for water purification, consisting of a staircase wetland with terracotta pot plants, as a filter for greywater, was explored. Also, the study further investigated the physicochemical properties of the greywater and the soil before and after the wetland purification. The manuscript presents interesting results, which are relatively well organized and systematized, but the novelty and practical applicability of this study should be highlighted more. Also, it will be useful to include some information regarding the economic impact of the work. In my opinion, this manuscript should be published after minor revision.

 

Here is a list of my general comments:

·   The novelty, economic impact and practical applicability of this study should be highlighted more.

·   Please check the reference list. Use uppercase, lowercase, subscript, italic, bold… where necessary.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for the feedback on our original research paper, appreciate the comments, and have implemented the advice given to improve the quality of the manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please include result with values in the abstract and conclusion 

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for the feedback on our original research paper, appreciate the comments, and have implemented the advice given to improve the quality of the manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments to Authors

1.      Highlights some key points.

2.      Write keywords in alphabetical order. Remove Sustainability.

3.      Please mention the Graphical abstract.

4.      Introduction, could be elaborated in terms of what other mechanism that has been used in previous or other related studies? Put the latest literature data.

5.      this layer [9]. The schmutzdecke plays a major role in the removal of particulate matter 50 [8]. 51 The constructed wetland has been recognized in several recent investigations as an 52 environment-friendly wastewater treatment alternative [74-78]. Why the reference is not in sequence? Revise it and make it clear.

6.      In your discussion section, please link your empirical results with a broader and deeper literature review.

7.      Revise the last paragraph of the introduction.

8.      Section 1.2. Soil properties and biodiversity are quite lengthy. Make it short and comprehensive to attract the reader’s interest.

9.      Table-4 coming first or Table-5? Revise it

10.  Add the impact of current work on industry and future research.

11.  For °C, Figure, Table, % etc., mentioned same format throughout the manuscript.

12.  3.3. Soil biomass. Where is its explanation? Explain it.

13.  Authors need to improve the problem statement in the introduction section.

14.  Use Endnote or Mendeley for reference. The current format is not according to the prestigious journal.

15.  Explain the conclusion in more detail.

16.  Authors need to increase the literature and problem statement from the current recent papers such as.

v  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-022-02561-8.

v  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.115253.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for the feedback on our original research paper, appreciate the comments, and have implemented the advice given to improve the quality of the manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments:

1.       In the abstract, specify the results described and/or add information in 1-2 sentences, please.

2.       Enlarge Figure 1 a bit, please.

3.       Improve the  quality of Figure 4 b, please.

4.       Enlarge the font in the Figure 5.

5.       Define the substantive links of the presented results of soil biodiversity with the proposed concept of the treatment of greywater and the effect of greywater.

6.       The work lacks a summary and a discussion on the prospects of effective implementation of the proposed concept.

7.       The results presentation in chapter 3.1 is too laconic. There are also no comparisons with literature data.

8.       As for the conclusions - the same request as in the case of the abstract - please specify the results in two additional sentences and/or add specific values.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for the feedback on our original research paper, appreciate the comments, and have implemented the advice given to improve the quality of the manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 6 Report

In the last ten years, many papers have been published dealing with wetlands, designed and constructed like natural wetland systems for the treatment of wastewater. The abstract and introduction should be emphasized why it is important to examine and compare the results obtained in this way. Some corrections should be made. Authors should make a better overview of works with similar processes.

 

Some changes need to be addressed before the manuscript is considered for publication.

In general, I advise a minor revision of this manuscript.

 

 

Comment 1: The words that appear in the title of the paper should not be repeated in the keywords.

 

Comment 2: section Introduction, There are many works with similar themes. Comparison is needed with other manuscripts (best presented in the table). Explain the advantages of preliminary measurements compared to the results of other authors used for the same purpose.

 

Comment 3: Did the authors examine the influence of some parameters that affect the efficiency of the process? This is very important in order to determine the optimal conditions. Therefore, these results may be included in this manuscript.

 

 

Comment 4: Please, included the cost analysis. This analysis should include the costs of electric energy consumed, the amount of spent terracotta pot, a substrate for every layer, and other devices during the process as well as the costs of chemicals used for the actual plant. This analysis is useful to preserve the environment and increase the efficiency of the process. This is one of the most important parameters that are taken into account when choosing the process that will be used to purify a real system.

 

Comment 5: Once an abbreviation is introduced, you should not rewrite both the full name and the abbreviation every time, as was done in line 269. Check through the entire paper for the abbreviations and their application in the text.

 

 

Comment 6: The same significant digits should be used in the whole manuscript.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for the feedback on our original research paper, appreciate the comments, and have implemented the advice given to improve the quality of the manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx