Use of Aloe vera as an Organic Coagulant for Improving Drinking Water Quality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is of interest to researchers considering the use of coagulative-flocculative water treatment processes and chemicals applicable in this regard. There are however some shortcomings which i have highlighted in the attached document. The abstract is very thin, the methodology needs to provide clarity on certain sections. With regards to the results and discussion, the authors have not provided depth in terms of the mechanisms at play with the AV coagulant and therefore no subtantial theories have been formulated. I do however think that with major revisions rather than a total rejection, this paper could be improved for readership of Water.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Editor and the Reviewers for the work done to encourage us to improve our paper.

Reviewer 01 Comments:

1. Reviewer: The paper is of interest to researchers considering the use of coagulative-flocculative water treatment processes and chemicals applicable in this regard. There are however some shortcomings which I have highlighted in the attached document. The abstract is very thin, the methodology needs to provide clarity on certain sections. With regards to the results and discussion, the authors have not provided depth in terms of the mechanisms at play with the AV coagulant and therefore no substantial theories have been formulated. I do however think that with major revisions rather than a total rejection, this paper could be improved for readership of Water.

01. Authors:

The abstract was updated and more details were added.

The methodology (materials and methods) section was modified accordingly.

The results and discussion section was updated and in depth discussion and new references were added.

Comments in the attached pdf file

02. Reviewer: Typo errors

02. Authors: We corrected them

03. Reviewer: Is there a reason why this is underlined?

03. Authors: There is no reason and the underline was removed.

04. Reviewer: The authors must separate between the value and its SI units e.g. dosage should be written as 1500 mg/L, that is leave space between 1500 and mg/L

04. Authors:  We modified the text accordingly.

05. Reviewer: Could the authors give the correct reference to the Algeria water quality law or act...whatever that is, but this needs to be cited and appear in the reference list.

05. Authors: The reference was added.

06. Reviewer: How did you adjust the pH? What chemicals (acids and bases) did you use?

06. Authors: It is mentioned in the results and discussion section at the pH effect subsection. pH was adjusted using a HCl 1.0 M solution as well as NaOH 1.0 M solution.

07. Reviewer: This procedure must be written as sentences not bullet points

07. Authors: It was modified accordingly.

08. Reviewer: Incorrect style of referencing

08. Authors: The reference style was modified.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript lacks any scientific discussion on the result. It is not clear the test methods they have used for different parameters (i.e. organic matter). One of the main reasons to use Jar test is to find optimum dose of coagulant, which is missing in the manuscript.

Also, a lack of sincerity is observed in preparing the manuscript.

More detailed comments are made in the appended manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Editor and the Reviewers for the work done to encourage us to improve our paper.

Reviewer 02 Comments:

1. Reviewer: The manuscript lacks any scientific discussion on the result.

Also, a lack of sincerity is observed in preparing the manuscript.

1. Authors: A scientific discussion was added to the “Results and Discussion” section.
2. Reviewer: It is not clear the test methods they have used for different parameters (i.e. organic matter).
3. Authors: All methods used to perform analyses have been referenced and mentioned in Table. 1.
4. Reviewer: One of the main reasons to use Jar test is to find optimum dose of coagulant, which is missing in the manuscript.
5. Authors: A paragraph on Jar test was added to “Materials and Methods” section.

Appended manuscript comments

4. Reviewer: Why the pattern of reducing the turbidity is opposite?
5. Authors: Actually, the pattern is not properly the opposite: the best performance in terms of turbidity removal was associated to a small quantity of Aloe Vera as liquid (see Fig. 4).
6. Reviewer: Lack of scientific discussion on the result. No information on why the results are obtained like this.
7. Authors: A scientific discussion was added accordingly (see reply to point 1
8. Reviewer: What is this unit??
9. Authors: °F unit is a unit of measuring total alkalinity, partial alkalinity and water hardness. It is equivalent to 10 mg CaCO₃/L. A note was added to the figure
10. Reviewer: What method you used to measure the organic matter?? The unit is for dissolved oxygen!!
11. Authors: The method was referenced in Table. 1.
12. Reviewer: Vague explanation
13. Authors: A more detailed explanation was provided.
14. Reviewer: There is no definite pattern on effect of pH on turbidity removal!!
15. Authors: The figure was plotted again with the aim to show the pattern.

Reviewer 3 Report

 

In the present study, In this paper, the use of Aloe Vera as natural-based coagulant for drinking water treatment was tested. The bio-coagulant was used in two different forms: powder as well as liquid; the latter extracted with distilled water as solvent  reactor were studied.

There were evaluated the energy efficiency of treatment technologies that display valuable properties, especially when interacting with real scale waste treatments, an observation serving as the foundation of the notion where the various data are largely attributed. There could be mentioned what are prevailing concentrations of residues, is there possibilities to overcome issues to accelerate the process further

In order to solve problem, there has been an improvement in the  removal efficiencies also need to show. More results should be shown graphically than on tables, graphs only in Results and discussion section not in Materials section

Fig. 1, 2 3, 5, 6. needs better figure graphs and contrastness error bars. Values not consistent, letters of sub fig. Need to be outside figure

Intro part should be 1.5 pages

Check that the  added scheme with more specific parameters could be added

Check if statistically You had normal distribution to use ANOVa , if not You need two way multiparametrical statistics

It seems that in present work biomass have been investigated in quite common manner, with lack of novelty. Effect that has been mentioned to connection with P removal need on abstract need more back up in graphs responses.

Real waste input could be compared with synthetic one in other works in current paper, how it can be realistic treatment method for majority of real sources needs to be discussed? Not proven to state this, what mechanism lies on economic treatment

More references needed: The data that support the findings of this study should added with the ref as per format of references

After „Surface and underground waters generally represent the main source of drinking water. However, these sources are in most cases loaded by suspended solids and colloids“ A Literature have showed organic and nutrient removal  process  to solve the problem of toxicity with biofilms for more economic nitrogen removal could be shown: 

• Alam, S.; Khan, M.S.; Bibi, W.; Zekker, I.; Burlakovs, J.; Ghangrekar, M.M.; Bhowmick, G.D.; Kallistova, A.; Pimenov, N.; Zahoor, M. Preparation of Activated Carbon from the Wood of Paulownia tomentosa as an Efficient Adsorbent for the Removal of Acid Red 4 and Methylene Blue Present in Wastewater. Water, 13, 1453-1468, (2021).

https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2015.1094421, https://doi.org/10.3390/w13030350, https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2020.1721566, DOI: 10.1007/s13762-017-1374-3 and after “ Add  newer publications regarding ORP control: https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2018.0225 and electricity production combined with wastewater treatment “ANAMMOX-denitrification biomass in microbial fuel cell to enhance electricity generation and nitrogen removal efficiency. DOI 10.1007/s10532-020-09907-w

 

Regarding to organics pollution nitrogen removal depending on denitrification and nitrate instead of oxygen could be cited after with this article as:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-018-02194-2 and papers on role of extremophilic conditions-tolerating bacteria https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.13876

  Additionally, ions interactions with chemicals are dependent on the prevailing environmental conditions such as pH”- an impact of pH, alkalinity and inorganic carbon source set for reactor tests could be taken account, Refer to proper publications showing higher pH causing process disturbances at in Your results it needed to be measured: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.7b00237

https://doi.org/10.3176/proc.2018.3.04

 

The work could be published on this scientific issue after minor revision.

Title

The title should say something about novel result of the research and show the innovative result.

He et al (He et al. 2016) used a suspended carrier biofilm reactor to operate- error in referring doubled

Methods

What pumps, mixers chemicals with companies names countries  need to be added

More significant differences needed to be added to figures with applied conditions, to be shown dependent on elevated concentration

 

In my opinion, main point of this study was somehow missed providing extensive discussion on too many details on bacterial data of characteristics, but not about main aims pointed.

reference after the sentences could be added : doi.org/10.1089/ees.2011.0146 , DOI: 10.1089/ees.2018.0225 and DOI: 10.1007/s13762-017-1374-3

Language and structuring of the work should be substantially revised.

 

There should be some specific conclusions and the main point of the work better introduced.

 Without concrete values and more sophisticated statistical techniques the text of the abstract and other sections remains vague. Word order of the sentences needs revision.

Abbreviations in the manuscript body, at the first occurrence, should be in abbreviated form plus full definition; then they should be given only in abbreviated forms throughout the manuscript.

 

 

Check the usage of = and > in the reactions. Mention if the reactions are conjugated.

Results

Some general sentences need to be adjusted in exact numbers and all limits.

The novelty of experimental set-up and operational strategy should be presented in a more clear way. Comparisons with other studies performed should be included.

what was exact significance level, p values?

Please provide the standard deviations for the operational parameters of the system presented in this chapter.

• Make sure same statements hold which are in the same order as in abstract and results. Results should be shown in numerical manner in conclusion and abstract

References

The references style should be made consistent (i.e. Journals names consistently with capital letters, remove commas before the authors names before last author), use automatic citation program.

Add references to confirm different effects of factors on nutrient removal biomass in moving-bed biofilm reactors

Too many old references has been given change, revise,

 

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Editor and the Reviewers for the work done to encourage us to improve our paper.

Reviewer 03 Comments:

1. Reviewer: In the present study, In this paper, the use of Aloe Vera as natural-based coagulant for drinking water treatment was tested. The bio-coagulant was used in two different forms: powder as well as liquid; the latter extracted with distilled water as solvent reactor were studied.

There were evaluated the energy efficiency of treatment technologies that display valuable properties, especially when interacting with real scale waste treatments, an observation serving as the foundation of the notion where the various data are largely attributed. There could be mentioned what are prevailing concentrations of residues, is there possibilities to overcome issues to accelerate the process further

In order to solve problem, there has been an improvement in the  removal efficiencies also need to show. More results should be shown graphically than on tables, graphs only in Results and discussion section not in Materials section

Fig. 1, 2 3, 5, 6. needs better figure graphs and contrastness error bars. Values not consistent, letters of sub fig. Need to be outside figure

Intro part should be 1.5 pages

Check that the added scheme with more specific parameters could be added

Check if statistically You had normal distribution to use ANOVa , if not You need two way multiparametrical statistics

It seems that in present work biomass have been investigated in quite common manner, with lack of novelty. Effect that has been mentioned to connection with P removal need on abstract need more back up in graphs responses.

Real waste input could be compared with synthetic one in other works in current paper, how it can be realistic treatment method for majority of real sources needs to be discussed? Not proven to state this, what mechanism lies on economic treatment

More references needed: The data that support the findings of this study should added with the ref as per format of references

After „Surface and underground waters generally represent the main source of drinking water. However, these sources are in most cases loaded by suspended solids and colloids“ A Literature have showed organic and nutrient removal  process  to solve the problem of toxicity with biofilms for more economic nitrogen removal could be shown:

Alam, S.; Khan, M.S.; Bibi, W.; Zekker, I.; Burlakovs, J.; Ghangrekar, M.M.; Bhowmick, G.D.; Kallistova, A.; Pimenov, N.; Zahoor, M. Preparation of Activated Carbon from the Wood of Paulownia tomentosa as an Efficient Adsorbent for the Removal of Acid Red 4 and Methylene Blue Present in Wastewater. Water, 13, 1453-1468, (2021).

https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2015.1094421, https://doi.org/10.3390/w13030350, https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2020.1721566, DOI: 10.1007/s13762-017-1374-3 and after “ Add  newer publications regarding ORP control: https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2018.0225 and electricity production combined with wastewater treatment “ANAMMOX-denitrification biomass in microbial fuel cell to enhance electricity generation and nitrogen removal efficiency. DOI 10.1007/s10532-020-09907-w

Regarding to organics pollution nitrogen removal depending on denitrification and nitrate instead of oxygen could be cited after with this article as:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-018-02194-2 and papers on role of extremophilic conditions-tolerating bacteria https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.13876

  Additionally, ions interactions with chemicals are dependent on the prevailing environmental conditions such as pH”- an impact of pH, alkalinity and inorganic carbon source set for reactor tests could be taken account, Refer to proper publications showing higher pH causing process disturbances at in Your results it needed to be measured: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.7b00237

https://doi.org/10.3176/proc.2018.3.04

The work could be published on this scientific issue after minor revision.

Title

The title should say something about novel result of the research and show the innovative result.

He et al (He et al. 2016) used a suspended carrier biofilm reactor to operate- error in referring doubled

Methods

What pumps, mixers chemicals with companies names countries need to be added

More significant differences needed to be added to figures with applied conditions, to be shown dependent on elevated concentration

In my opinion, main point of this study was somehow missed providing extensive discussion on too many details on bacterial data of characteristics, but not about main aims pointed.

reference after the sentences could be added : doi.org/10.1089/ees.2011.0146 , DOI: 10.1089/ees.2018.0225 and DOI: 10.1007/s13762-017-1374-3

Language and structuring of the work should be substantially revised.

There should be some specific conclusions and the main point of the work better introduced.

 Without concrete values and more sophisticated statistical techniques the text of the abstract and other sections remains vague. Word order of the sentences needs revision.

Abbreviations in the manuscript body, at the first occurrence, should be in abbreviated form plus full definition; then they should be given only in abbreviated forms throughout the manuscript.

Check the usage of = and > in the reactions. Mention if the reactions are conjugated.

Results

Some general sentences need to be adjusted in exact numbers and all limits.

The novelty of experimental set-up and operational strategy should be presented in a more clear way. Comparisons with other studies performed should be included.

what was exact significance level, p values?

Please provide the standard deviations for the operational parameters of the system presented in this chapter.

Make sure same statements hold which are in the same order as in abstract and results. Results should be shown in numerical manner in conclusion and abstract

References

The references style should be made consistent (i.e. Journals names consistently with capital letters, remove commas before the authors names before last author), use automatic citation program.

Add references to confirm different effects of factors on nutrient removal biomass in moving-bed biofilm reactors

Too many old references has been given change, revise,

1. Authors: All the experimental results are presented in figures in “Results and discussion” section. Raw water characteristics are reported in Table 2.

All figures were rearranged.

Introduction was reduced to less than two pages.

Language and manuscript structure were revised.

The structural design (ANOVA for instance) could not be conducted at this moment since it was not designed from the beginning of the study. The investigated values do not match the proposed combinations.

An abbreviation list was added at the beginning of the manuscript.

A table (Table. 2) was added at the end of “Results and Discussion” section where the performance of different coagulants in terms of turbidity removal efficiency are compared.

Conclusions were reformulated.

Some of the proposed references were added to the text according to the reviewer.

Reviewer 4 Report

Reviewer Reports:

I recommend major amendments at this level.

General comments:

The manuscript entitled “Use of Aloe Vera as an organic coagulant for improving drinking water quality” was reviewed. The work carried out in the manuscript is interesting and aimed at investigating the potential of Aloe Vera as a coagulant for drinking water treatment. This natural element was selected according to its effectiveness of treatment and its worldwide availability. However, the authors are suggested to undergo several more corrections as per the reviewer's comments to improve the quality of the manuscript. I would like to suggest the authors improve their English. This can enhance the presentation of this paper. Some of the sentences can be simplified and the redundant words can be deleted. Please eliminate the lump of references. After that please check the manuscript thoroughly and eliminate all the lumps in the manuscript. This should be done by characterizing each reference individually. This can be done by mentioning 1 or 2 phrases per reference to show how it is different from the others and why it deserves mentioning. There must be a suitable gap addressed by this work as well. Please highlight the significance of addressing the gaps. The manuscript has a lot of information however there are some lacking connectors or the writing style makes it very confusing. I suggest the authors take a closer look and adjust the write-up to be more precise and appealing to the readers. I find there is no convincing link between the motivations for doing the paper and the way it has been conducted as well as the conclusions reached. Also, it is observed that the discussion not well-argued. Too many abbreviations are used in the analysis and results. I recommend a nomenclature section for the abbreviations and variables used throughout the passage. Highlights are necessary for this journal. Please provide a graphical abstract to provide a visual summary of the main findings of the study. Other main remarks that in my opinion needs attention are the following:

 

Abstract:

Abstract not explicit enough. Abstract too much on the background. should be more outcome-oriented. In the abstract, please add an indication of the achievements of your study that are relevant to the journal scope. Please be concise - maximum 1-2 lines. Quantitative data should be incorporated into the abstract.

Introduction:

In the introduction, you need to connect the state of the art to your paper goals. This should clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to your paper goals. Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals. Please use relevant recent references by other authors, recent meaning from 2018 - 2021. The literature review should clarify the "contribution" of your study. The authors failed to present the study debates and failed to discuss the debates. In general, the authors should present the specific debate for your study. You may see the following articles:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620345972

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13399-020-01259-y

Please eliminate the use of redundant words. Eg. In this way, Recently, Respectively, therefore, currently, thus, hence, finally, to do this, first, in order, however, moreover, nowadays, today, consequently, in addition, additionally, furthermore. - Please revise all similar cases, as removing these term(s) would not significantly affect the meaning of the sentence. This will keep the manuscript as CONCISE as possible. Please check ALL. Avoid beginning or end a sentence with one or a few words, they are usually redundant. Kindly revise all.

Please provide one table and compare your results with the others. The aim of the introduction needs to rewrite.

 

Materials and Methods:

 

Please avoid having one heading after another with no discussion in between as in the case of Section 2 and 2.1. Kindly inspect the entire document for similar instances and revise accordingly. A schematic diagram of the procedures is recommended in the methods section. Please give details and the geographical location of “Mila, Algeria”. Please follow standard SI units, for example; ml should replace with mL, please check the whole manuscript and revise it.

How about SEM and TEM?

 

Results and Discussion:

On the FTIR spectra results, the authors have only identified the functional groups for each band. The respective indications, physical interpretations, and their supposed reaction effects must be reported. Also, more discussions are necessary regarding the physical interpretations of the XRD. Appropriate referencing is necessary for the discussion of these characterization results. The authors should perform a comparison between the forecasting results with those of the literature. In the section of Discussion, when discussed with results, the authors should improve the logic to make it readable.

 

Conclusions:

The conclusion section appears to be just a detailed summary of the results/observations. All conclusions must be convincing statements on what was found to be novel, impactful based on the strong support of the data.

References:

They need to strictly follow the journal's guidelines. Please double-check.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Editor and the Reviewers for the work done to encourage us to improve our paper.

Reviewer 04 Comments:

General comments:

1. Reviewer: I would like to suggest the authors to improve the English.
2. Authors: The language and writing style were revised.
3. Reviewer: Please eliminate lump of references.
4. Authors: We followed the journal referencing guidelines of Water Journal.
5. Reviewer: The manuscript has a lot of information however there are some lacking connectors or the writing style makes it very confusing. I suggest the authors take a closer look and adjust the write up to be more precise and appealing to the readers. I find there is no convincing link between the motivations for doing the paper and the way it has been conducted as well as the conclusions reached. Also, it is observed that the discussion not well argued.
6. Authors: The manuscript and its structure were revised. Discussions were extended
7. Reviewer: Too many abbreviations are used in the analysis and results. I recommend a nomenclature section for the abbreviations and variables used through the passage.
8. Authors: An abbreviation list was added in the beginning of the manuscript.
9. Reviewer: Highlights are necessary for this journal. Please provide to provide a visual summary of the main findings of the study.
10. Authors: A graphical abstract file was added with the revised manuscript.

Abstract:

6. Reviewer: Abstract not explicit enough. Abstract too much on the background. should be more outcome-oriented. In the abstract, please add an indication of the achievements of your study that are relevant to the journal scope. Please be concise - maximum 1-2 lines. Quantitative data should be incorporated into the abstract.
7. Authors: The abstract was revised.

Introduction:

7. Reviewer: In the introduction, you need to connect the state of the art to your paper goals. This should clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to your paper goals. Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals. Please use relevant recent references by other authors, recent meaning from 2018 - 2021. The literature review should clarify the "contribution" of your study. The authors failed to present the study debates and failed to discuss the debates. In general, the authors should present the specific debate for your study. You may see these following articles:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620345972

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13399-020-01259-y

7. Author: References were updated and rearranged accordingly.
8. Reviewer: Please eliminate the use of redundant words. Eg. In this way, Recently, Respectively, therefore, currently, thus, hence, finally, to do this, first, in order, however, moreover, nowadays, today, consequently, in addition, additionally, furthermore. - Please revise all similar cases, as removing these term(s) would not significantly affect the meaning of the sentence. This will keep the manuscript as CONCISE as possible. Please check ALL. Avoid beginning or end a sentence with one or a few words, they are usually redundant. Kindly revise all.
9. Authors: The whole manuscript was revised.
10. Reviewer: Please provide one table and compare your results with the others. The aim of the introduction need to rewrite.
11. Authors: The table was removed from the introduction and added to “Results and Discussion” section including results from the current study.

Materials and Methods:

 

Please give details and geographical location of “Mila, Algeria”. Please follow standard SI units, for example; ml should replace with mL, please check whole manuscript and revise it.

How about SEM and TEM?

 

10. Reviewer: Please avoid having one heading after another with no discussion in between as in the case of Section 2 and 2.1. Kindly inspect the entire document for similar instances and revise accordingly.
11. Authors: A short paragraph and a flow chart was added between the heading section and its subsection title in the following sections (2. and 2.1, 2.3. and 2.3.1, and 3. and 3.1).
12. Reviewer: A schematic diagram of the procedures are recommended in the methods section.
13. Authors: A flow chart was added in section 2 where the experimental procedures used in this study are reported.
14. Reviewer: Please give details and geographical location of “Mila, Algeria”.
15. Authors: The geographical location of “Mila, Algeria” was added.
16. Reviewer: Please follow standard SI units, for example; ml should replace with mL, please check whole manuscript and revise it.
17. Authors: The manuscript was revised accordingly.
18. Reviewer: How about SEM and TEM?
19. Authors: Unfortunately, we could not make SEM or TEM analysis because of its unavailability in the laboratory where we work or in any alternative accessible laboratory.

Results and Discussion:

15. Reviewer: On the FTIR spectra results, the authors have only identified the functional groups for each band. The respective indications, physical interpretations and their supposed reaction effects must be reported. Also, more discussions are necessary regarding the physical interpretations of the XRD. Appropriate referencing are necessary in the discussion of these characterization results. The authors should perform a comparison between the forecasting results with those of the literature.

15. Authors: More discussion was added according to Reviewer’s suggestion.

16. Reviewer: In the section of Discussion, when discussed with results, the authors should improve the logic to make it readable.

16. Authors: The discussion section was extended and rephrased.

 

Conclusions:

17. Reviewer: Conclusion section appears to be just a detailed summary of the results/observations. All conclusions must be convincing statements on what was found to be novel, impactful based on the strong support of the data.

17. Authors: The conclusions were rephrased.

References:

18. Reviewer: They need to strictly follow the journal's guidelines. Please double check.

18. Authors: The reference list was updated

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper looks good in its present form with minor language/grammar errors which I have made correction suggestions to on the attached file.

Also, I think for the benefits of the readers of this paper, the authors should mention how they chacterised turbidity, pH, total alkalinity, total hardness, salinity and organic matter content. This sort of information is crucial for researchers or operators doing work on coagulation-flocculation-sedimentation processes of a similar nature to the work presented in this paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Editor and the Reviewer#1 for all comments and suggestions that helped us to improve the manuscript.

Reviewer 01 Comments:

01. Reviewer: The paper looks good in its present form with minor language/grammar errors which I have made correction suggestions to on the attached file.

01. Authors: Manuscript was corrected accordingly. .

2. Reviewer: Also, I think for the benefits of the readers of this paper, the authors should mention how they characterized turbidity, pH, total alkalinity, total hardness, salinity and organic matter content. This sort of information is crucial for researchers or operators doing work on coagulation-flocculation-sedimentation processes of a similar nature to the work presented in this paper.

02. Authors: Methods concerning the characterization of water in terms of turbidity, pH, total alkalinity, total hardness, salinity and organic matter content were added to the manuscript in section 2.1.

Reviewer 2 Report

No comment

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Editor and the Reviewer#2 for all comments and suggestions that helped us to improve the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Reviewer Reports: I reviewed the revised version entitled" Use of Aloe Vera as an organic coagulant for improving drinking water quality". The authors have carefully addressed and explained the comments. The paper is recommended for publication.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Editor and the Reviewer#4 for all comments and suggestions that helped us to improve the manuscript.