Effects of UV-A Light Treatment on Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, Greenhouse Gases, and Ozone in Simulated Poultry Barn Conditions
, Jisoo Wi 1,2, Jacek A. Koziel 2,*, Heekwon Ahn 1,2, Peiyang Li 2, Baitong Chen 2, Zhanibek Meiirkhanuly 2, Chumki Banik 2 and William Jenks 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
No more comments or suggestions except thorough spellcheck advised.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The quality of the manuscript has been improved. The manuscript deals with an important topic for livestock industry (i.e reduction of GHG). The subject was well presented and analysed. However my initial concern about the scale of the expertiment (small scaled simulated experiment) in relation to a real experimental or commercial farm is still exists. Some lines concering how the present results could be scaled up or be valid in real conditions would be useful.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I still think that the manuscript presents some very interesting results concerning the effect of UV-A on the removal of NH3, N2O, CH4, CO2, H2S and O3 in an experimental setup that resembles the conditions that prevail in the exhaust air from poultry barns. The manuscript has been improved and the results for NH3, N2O, and O3 are very convincing and show an clear effect of the different treatments. However, the results presented for H2S and CH4 show a random effect of the different treatments and the results may be more a reflection of the limitation of the analytical methods used to measure the concentration of these gases. Another explanation might be that the methane results could have been affected by a photocatalytic production of CH4 from CO2 ? "Photocatalytic transformation of CO2 to CH4 and CO on acidic surface of TiO2 anatase
By: Civis, Svatopluk; Ferus, Martin; Knizek, A.; et al.Conference: 13th International Conference on Frontiers of Polymers and Advanced Materials (ICFPAM) - Emerging and Transferring New Technologies Location: Marrakech, MOROCCO Date: MAR 29-APR 02, 2015OPTICAL MATERIALS Volume: 56 Special Issue: SI Pages: 80-83"
To sum up, as the results show that there is no effect of UV-A on H2S and CH4 in the experimental setup, I still think it is sufficient to mention this in the text and remove figure 6, 7, 8 and 9 from the manuscript.
line 82 , line 465, "black UV light" change to UV-A
line 116 "The humidifier" change to A humidifier
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
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
The paper is well-written and informative. Acute practical problem handled. Good practical support for the photocatalysis promotion to the market. The typing mistake in the Abstract needs attention: please, remove an extra word 'and' from the second sentence.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript deals with a very interesting topic for intensive livestock production, i.e the reduction or mitigation of ammonia and GHG. Authors explore the use of UV light in order to mitigate the gases.
Approach is interesting, the experimental part is well designed and executed and the presented results show the potential of the method (UV light) to mitigate ammonia, GHG and other gases in livestock production systems.
In general all the paper is well written and presented. However there are two major points in which authors should try to find an alternative solution:
1) Application of the method (and thus associated results) are based only to a small scale (lab) simulated experiment. Authors should explain why they don't test their method in a real poultry production systems. Moreover could the present (lab based) results extend to real production systems?
2) We do not have any data concerting the economical sustainability of the treatment method. Which is its cost? How it would implemented in a real production system?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a very interesting paper addressing the use of UV-A to reduce emission of ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone from poultry barns. However, I have some concerns that I think needs to be addressed.
What was the detection limit of the different methods used for measuring the gases?
Why has no control measurement been included in the experiment? it would strengthen the paper if the measurements were made in the experimental setup without any UV-light.
Minor questions
The concentration of the calibration gases for methane and carbon dioxide are much higher than the concentrations used in the experiments. Was the standard curve forced through 0,0 ?
Could the different relative humidity used in the experiments have any effect on the concentration of NH3measured by the gas analyzer?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
