Life Cycle Assessment of an Innovative Combined Treatment and Constructed Wetland Technology for the Treatment of Hexachlorocyclohexane-Contaminated Drainage Water in Hajek in the Czech Republic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Figure 5 is too simple, please aesthetic.

2. There are a lot of evaluation and measurement data in the paper, but it is not found that the author added error bars to the graph.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English needs to be further polished.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the authors used LCA to evaluate the environmental impact of Wetland+ technology versus conventional wastewater treatment in Hajek, Czech Republic. The authors found that, within the evaluated system boundaries, Wetland+ technology caused more than 11 times less environmental burden than conventional wastewater treatment technology. This is a good experiment on a technical scale.The manuscript is well-written, clearly structured, and provided a comprehensive analysis. However, the manuscript requires careful revision to meet the publication standards of Sustainability. The following comments should be addressed in the revision:

1. In which part do the authors provide detailed explanations of whether the chosen methodology is reasonable and adequately reflects the environmental impact of Wetland+ and the conventional wastewater treatment?

2. Please explain the robustness and credibility of the evaluation results to further incorporate characterization and analysis of uncertainties.

 

3. If possible, the authors should also discuss how the results in this manuscript compare with those of other similar studies, highlighting any consistencies or differences.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Life cycle assessment of an innovative combined treatment and constructed wetland technology for the treatment of hexachlorocyclohexane contaminated drainage water at Hajek in the Czech Republic" appears to be well-structured and clearly presented. It outlines the study's objective, which is to perform a life cycle assessment (LCA) on Wetland+ technology compared to conventional wastewater treatment technology. The relevance to the field is significant, given the focus on sustainable and innovative methods for treating contaminated water, a critical environmental issue. The references in the manuscript are relevant. The experimental design seems appropriate to test the hypothesis. The study compares the innovative Wetland+ technology with conventional methods using data from a full-scale installation in the Czech Republic. This comparative approach is scientifically sound and allows for a robust analysis of the benefits and drawbacks of the new technology. Overall, the manuscript appears to be a well-structured and relevant contribution to the field of sustainable wastewater treatment. The innovative Wetland+ technology is a significant development, and the comparative LCA provides valuable insights. Ensuring clarity, appropriate referencing, detailed methodology, and robust data interpretation will strengthen the manuscript further. ​The study is based on data from a single location in the Czech Republic. While this provides a specific case study, the findings might not be directly applicable to other regions with different environmental conditions, regulations, or contamination profiles. The manuscript should clarify whether the conclusions about the Wetland+ technology can be generalized or if they are specific to the conditions and configurations studied. While the manuscript focuses on the environmental benefits of Wetland+ technology, it should also consider potential economic costs and benefits. A holistic assessment that includes both environmental and economic factors would provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the technology's viability. However this is only suggestion and not required for this manuscript. The manuscript should include more detailed descriptions of the experimental setup and control conditions. While the manuscript appears to be a valuable contribution to the field of sustainable wastewater treatment, addressing these potential disadvantages would enhance its robustness and impact. Ensuring detailed methodology, transparent data sourcing, comprehensive statistical analysis, and a balanced assessment of environmental and economic factors are critical steps for improvement. Additionally, updating references will further strengthen the manuscript's credibility and readability.

To sum up:

Simplify technical language and complex sentences for better readability.

Update references to include more recent studies.

Provide more detailed descriptions of the experimental setup and methodologies.

Include comprehensive statistical analysis details.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf