Ecological Risk Assessment and Sustainable Management of Pollutants in Hydroponic Wastewater from Plant Factories

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Journal           : Sustainability

Manuscript ID: sustainability-3141882

Title        : Ecological Risk Assessment and Sustainable Management of Pollutants in Hydroponic Wastewater from Plant Factories

 

This manuscript focused on determination of 17 micropollutants in wastewater samples from 33 different sampling and determination their potential environmental risk, what is the novelty of this study? the authors should highlight on the novelty of this study. Why the title in the manuscript is different from that mentioned in the supplementary materials? Please check. Why the authors used the word “hydroponic” before wastewater in the title and in the whole MS.

-        It will be better if the author add list of abbreviations at the beginning of the MS.

-         The statistical analysis methods should add as section 2.5 in M&M. to mention the program that used in the analysis.

-        The discussion is poor it will be better to separate discussion away from results and discussion.

-        Figures 1 and 2 are empty and lack any data.

-         It will be that the authors mention the permissible limit for each pollutant to reuse.

Finally, the manuscript needs some revisions to improve. The manuscript has been accepted for publication after major revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed manuscript (sustainability-3141882) investigated the concentrations of 17 pollutants in hydroponic wastewater from 33 plant factories, South Korea. The hazard quotient (HQ) was calculated to assess the impact of these pollutants on the water ecosystem. The authors suggested methods for treatment for the recorded priority pollutants based on previous investigations. Please consider the following points to improve the manuscript:

1. Abstract: The abstract is incomplete. Please provide some details on the background and methods.

2. Line 9; environmental → ecological

3. Line 32; Ca, Mg, and S not considered as trace elements.

4. Introduction: The introduction section should be supported with recent and relevant literature. Please summarize the findings of the most relevant literature on different contaminants in hydroponic wastewater.

5. Section 2.4.; All instrument details (model, manufacture) must be provided, as well as Quality Control and Assurance information (analytical quality control, accuracy, certified reference materials, and detection limits).

6. Lines 112:115; What exactly do you mean by detection frequency? And how important is it to highlight that this had never been recorded before?

7. Table 4; The authors should comment on the descriptive statistics presented in this table (in most cases, SD > Av.).

8. Figures 1 and 2; There is an error in displaying these figures.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a study of the monitoring of selected organic and inorganic pollutants appearing in hydroponic wastewater from plant factories and simple analysis of environmental risk resulted from mentioned pollutants presence in wastewater introduced to the environment.

Authors present the discussed issues in an interesting way, the experiments were properly designed and carried out. Generally proposed manuscript contains scientific approach to the problem. But the manuscript needs a smooth corrections of its editorial form. In my opinion, this paper can be published after a major revision, especially in methodology and editorial context.

Detailed comments and suggestions are given in an attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language of manuscript is understandable, but presented text needs smooth language examination.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been accepted for publication in the present form

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The modified version of the manuscript (sustainability-3141882) was greatly improved. The reviewer appreciates the author’s point by point response. Only one more comment:

 

1.      Line 143; these pesticides??