Performance Evaluation of a Hybrid Enhanced Membrane Bioreactor (eMBR) System Treating Synthetic Textile Effluent
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The present manuscript presented excellent and very detail research findings on the treatment of wastewater. however, there are parts that need improvement before acceptance, the comments as below:
General comment:
- Please add a figure of illustration for the said reactor with complete labeling.
- Add a paragraph explaining scientifically and fundamentally how the membrane treats textile effluent, an additional figure illustrating the process is strongly advised.
specific comment:
3. Add at least a reference for techniques used for the preparation of synthetic textile and wastewater.
4. Figure 1 has typing error
5. Figure 6 please change to the same magnification for each of the images.
6. Table 6 has typing error
7. typing error at line 66 page 2. 'gray or grey'
Author Response
General comment:
- Please add a figure of illustration for the said reactor with complete labelling.
We have included a schematic of the eMBR system.
- Add a paragraph explaining scientifically and fundamentally how the membrane treats textile effluent, an additional figure illustrating the process is strongly advised.
We have added the following paragraph and have included a process flow diagram.
specific comment:
- Add at least a reference for techniques used for the preparation of synthetic textile and wastewater.
It is added.
- Figure 1 has typing error
It is corrected.
- Figure 6 please change to the same magnification for each of the images.
Fig 6 has been improved. Some images have different magnification to show other details,
- Table 6 has typing error
Typing errors have been corrected.
- typing error at line 66 page 2. 'gray or grey'
It has been corrected to grey.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper can be accepted for publication after major revision taking into account the following specific comments:
-The introduction is so general, needs to be improved with focus on the use of the eMBR technique and to compare with the previous research.
- On what basis authors have selected the combination between the two wastewaters used? Previous work? Or others justifications
-In the section Experimental setup of hybrid eMBR system, the description of the configuration used is not clear. It is better to provide a scheme with a legend.
-The figures are with poorly quality. Thus, they must be changed and modified.
-In the section results and discussion, a deep discussion should be added and comparison with others studies and researches are required.
The whole of paper should be restructured.
Author Response
-The introduction is so general, needs to be improved with focus on the use of the eMBR technique and to compare with the previous research. The following has been added to improve the introduction.
- On what basis authors have selected the combination between the two wastewaters used? Previous work? Or others justifications
The microbes in the eMBR system need acclimatisation to textile wastewater. Introducing high strength textile wastewater to eMBR from the beginning will not allow the microbes to grow efficiently. Thus, the strength of the textile wastewater should be increased gradually, Therefore, the experiments were started with domestic wastewater which will allow the microbes to grow efficiently and the textile wastewater composition in the feed solution was increased gradually until the entire feed solution became high strength textile wastewater.
- In the section Experimental setup of hybrid eMBR system, the description of the configuration used is not clear. It is better to provide a scheme with a legend.
We have included a schematic of the eMBR system
- The figures are with poorly quality. Thus, they must be changed and modified.
We have improved the quality of the figures.
- In the section results and discussion, a deep discussion should be added and comparison with others studies and researches are required.
We have improved the discussions wherever possible.
- The whole of paper should be restructured.
We have improved the manuscript as much as possible and it would have been helpful if the reviewer has stated what type of restructure would be required.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors of the article conducted comprehensive research on the treatment of synthetic wastewater saturated with organic and inorganic pollutants used in our daily lives, using a membrane bioreactor. The article is well written and the experiments are conducted at a high level. But there are a number of comments to improve this manuscript:
- the introduction should be improved by adding data on the permitted standards of all pollutants, their negative impact on the human body, and the available methods for their removal from water
- it is necessary to add a scheme of laboratory-scale hybrid which is key in this study
- conclusions are very general for such a complex work, they need to be expanded with specific data
Author Response
The authors of the article conducted comprehensive research on the treatment of synthetic wastewater saturated with organic and inorganic pollutants used in our daily lives, using a membrane bioreactor. The article is well written and the experiments are conducted at a high level. But there are a number of comments to improve this manuscript:
- the introduction should be improved by adding data on the permitted standards of all pollutants, their negative impact on the human body, and the available methods for their removal from water
We have added relevant information in the introduction section.
- it is necessary to add a scheme of laboratory-scale hybrid which is key in this study
We have included a schematic of the eMBR system.
- conclusions are very general for such a complex work, they need to be expanded with specific data
We have revised the conclusions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I read this manuscript after revision and found that there are some improvement compared to the last version. However, there are some corrections that need improvement. In particular, in the section results and discussion the part in which authors report color; turbidity; COD; TOC and TSS removal, it needs to be more detailed and compared to the results published in the literature.
Author Response
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I read this manuscript after revision and found that there are some improvement compared to the last version. However, there are some corrections that need improvement. In particular, in the section results and discussion the part in which authors report color; turbidity; COD; TOC and TSS removal, it needs to be more detailed and compared to the results published in the literature.
It was added discussion about the above parameter comparing the data and also a table with many similar works done in this field and their results.
Submission Date
11 March 2022
Date of this review
03 May 2022 11:44:24
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
