Roadmapping the Transition to Water Resource Recovery Facilities: The Two Demonstration Case Studies of Corleone and Marineo (Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is quite interesting being the central idea the transformation of WWTP into WRRF. In this context, two case studies are presented where "water smart solutions" were tested in order to contribute to the circular economy.

The article is well written, well organized and presents relevant results.

It is too long, so I suggested that you remove item 5.4 and publish it in another paper, making the corresponding changes in the abstract and in the conclusions. Alternatively, I suggest replacing item 5.4 with 5.5.

Figure 1 a) and b) have the legends of the various WWTP organs but they are very difficult to read.

Figure 8 is also poorly readable.

In line 111 you say that the objective is to use water and sludge in agriculture and in line 391 it shows the values of "the discharge limit". Are these limit values for discharge into water or in agriculture?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #1 comments

Reviewer #1 – general comment

The paper is quite interesting being the central idea the transformation of WWTP into WRRF. In this context, two case studies are presented where "water smart solutions" were tested in order to contribute to the circular economy. The article is well written, well organized and presents relevant results.

Authors:

Authors thanks Reviewer#1 for appreciating the manuscript.

Reviewer #1 - comment #1

It is too long, so I suggested that you remove item 5.4 and publish it in another paper, making the corresponding changes in the abstract and in the conclusions. Alternatively, I suggest replacing item 5.4 with 5.5.

Authors:

For sake of completeness we have maintained section 5.4. However, section 5.4 has been summarized as much as possible.

As suggested, section 5.4 has been replaced with 5.5. Further, for coherence section 4.3 has been replaced with 4.4

 

Reviewer #1 - comment #2

Figure 1 a) and b) have the legends of the various WWTP organs but they are very difficult to read.

Authors:

Figure 1a) and b) have been corrected. Please, see the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer #1 - comment #3

Figure 8 is also poorly readable.

Authors:

Figure 8 has been corrected. Please, see the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer #1 - comment #4

In line 111 you say that the objective is to use water and sludge in agriculture and in line 391 it shows the values of "the discharge limit". Are these limit values for discharge into water or in agriculture?

Authors:

As reported in lines 146-148 “The ultrafiltration system has never started up. Therefore, within Wider Uptake project the membrane maintenance is going to be performed in view of operating the ultrafiltration system to produce water to be reused for the irrigation of Corleone’s municipal gardens.”

Therefore, we refer to discharge into water. The manuscript has been slightly modified in view of clarify this aspect.

Please, see the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject covered in the paper is of great importance, and the paper is well organized. However, important corrections are needed for quality and readability improvement:

• Sentences structure need to be reviewed, and so does grammar and vocabulary (see highlighted examples). Also review the tense (past-tense) in some sentences.
• Quality of pictures
• Define acronyms at initial uses
• For volume and flowrate data, consider adopting one unit (L or m³).
• Review the method section to summarize and eliminate unneeded descriptive details. Suggestion to provide details in supplementary materials.
• There is no need to introduce figures and table before describing the results. the results should be described from the get-go then the figures and tables should be cited for reference. Introducing the figures and tables prior to the descriptions serves only to increase the size of the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer #2- General comment

The subject covered in the paper is of great importance, and the paper is well organized. However, important corrections are needed for quality and readability improvement:

Authors:

Authors thanks Reviewer#1 for appreciating the manuscript. A point-by-point reply is presented in the following items.

 

Reviewer #2- comment #1

Sentences structure need to be reviewed, and so does grammar and vocabulary (see highlighted examples). Also review the tense (past-tense) in some sentences.

Authors:

According to Reviewer#2 suggestion grammar and vocabulary of the manuscript have been corrected. Moreover, all the corrections reported in the pdf have been implemented. Please, see the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer #2- comment #2

Quality of pictures

Authors:

The pictures quality has been improved. Please, see the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer #2- comment #3

Define acronyms at initial uses

Authors:

The manuscript has been accordingly modified. Please, see the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer #2- comment #4

For volume and flowrate data, consider adopting one unit (L or m3).

Authors:

The manuscript has been accordingly modified. Please, see the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer #2- comment #5

Review the method section to summarize and eliminate unneeded descriptive details. Suggestion to provide details in supplementary materials.

Authors:

The manuscript has been accordingly modified. Please, see the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer #2- comment #6

There is no need to introduce figures and table before describing the results. the results should be described from the get-go then the figures and tables should be cited for reference. Introducing the figures and tables prior to the descriptions serves only to increase the size of the paper.

Authors:

The manuscript has been accordingly modified. Please, see the revised manuscript.