Partially Saturated Vertical Constructed Wetlands and Free-Flow Vertical Constructed Wetlands for Pilot-Scale Municipal/Swine Wastewater Treatment Using Heliconia latispatha
, Georgina MartÃnez-Reséndiz 1,2, Florentina Zurita 3, José Luis MarÃn-Muñiz 4, MarÃa Cristina López Méndez 1, Sergio Zamora 5 and Luis Carlos Sandoval Herazo 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The current manuscript entitled “Municipal Wastewater Treatment Through a Constructed Wetland Free Flow Vertical and Partially Saturated Vertical at Pilot Scale” by Viveros et al. deals with the removal of pollutants from municipal wastewater using a Vertical Constructed Wetland. After a careful reading, I found this manuscript appropriate for the Water MDPI journal. However, I have noted several grey points in the current version of the manuscript which need to be carefully corrected and a revised version could be further considered. There is no specific information about the problem and proposed hypothesis. Also, my major concern is regarding the English language and the logical fluency of the paper. It should be thoroughly scrutinized by a native speaker and all grammatical / syntax errors should be corrected. Therefore, I suggest major revisions. My specific comments are:
1. The title is too ordinary. It should include the name of the plant species used. Because there are numerous studies on the treatment of municipal wastewater using a Vertical Constructed Wetland.
2. Authors should clarify the name of Heliconia spp. Were the plants of different species of the same genus?
3. Line 19: was evaluated? English.
4. Line 20: Were six? English.
5. Line 22: Change “every” to “each”.
6. Extend the methodology in the abstract part. Also, the novelty of the study is missing here.
7. Line 34-35: Improve grammar.
8. I can’t mention all the English mistakes one by one here. So, authors should take the help of an English editing service or a native speaker to correct them.
9. The problem of municipal wastewater generation, its impacts on the environment, stats, and associate research problem is lacking in the abstract.
10. Why authors used this particular plant species? It should be clearly mentioned in the introduction.
11. What is the main difference between Free Flow Vertical and Partially Saturated Vertical flow? It should be clearly written in the introduction. What are the advantages and disadvantages of these designs? A logical description using recent literature is a must.
12. Section 2.1: Provide the location of plant collection too. Did the authors pre-acclimatize the plants before using them in the final experiments?
13. No information about experimental replication?
14. More information about flow control and wetland design is required.
15. Figure 1: Write the names of different components within the figure.
16. Did the authors perform dilution of wastewater?
17. Figures: Month names in the axial titles are wrongly written. The first letter must always be in capitals (Aug not aug).
18. Abbreviations used in figures / tables should be given in their captions / footers.
19. What was the effect of the initial pollutant load on plant growth? I believe that the nature of pollutants changes significantly, why the wastewater properties after Oct-19 were lower than before?
20. The data on plant growth is not provided as table / figure. One can’t understand the trend of vegetative development in this version. Also, the correlation between wastewater properties and plant growth attributes is missing.
21. Rewrite the conclusion section with more focus on the major outcome, shortcomings, recommendations, and future scope of the study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We appreciate each and every one of your comments, they helped improve the manuscript.
Your comments were taken care of and the English revised.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
See attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We appreciate each and every one of your comments, they helped improve the manuscript.
Your comments were taken care of and the English revised.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- The novelty of the work was not indicated in the introduction. It is highly recommended to add some sentences at the end of introduction regarding this issue.
- Some grammatical errors such as punctuation should be considered and revised in the whole manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We appreciate each and every one of your comments, they helped improve the manuscript.
Your comments were taken care of and the English revised.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised version is appropriately corrected as per my comments/suggestions. I suggest accept in current form. Thank you.
Author Response
Review comment: English language and style is fine/minor spell check required
Answer: English language and style, checked again and minor spell checker attended
Reviewer 2 Report
Last sentence of abstract very unclear and too long
Table 1 - wastewater? - pig or domestic or mixed?
Author Response
Review Comments:
1. Moderate changes in English are required
2. The last sentence of the abstract is very unclear and too long.
3. Table 1 - wastewater? - pig or domestic or mixed?
Response:
1. English language and style, revised and with assisted spell checking.
2. The comment in the Summary was extended
3. was residual guide -Mixed and was treated in the title of table 1
