Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Answer Comment 2, 3 effortfully. 

1. For comment 2, it's mostly the examples of work of various authors done in the same country. I asked to add few studies mentioning similar mitigation measures practiced elsewhere in the world to give your discussion a literature support.

2. For comment 3, There is no mention of policy implication of the work in the paper. Add policy relevance to benefit wide readability. 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers Manuscript ID# water-2033151

Reviewer 1.
Comments	Responses
1.      Citation improvement is needed.	The citations were improved by including recent data on water quality assessment and incorporating them in the manuscript.
2.      It's mostly the examples of work of various authors done in the same country. I asked to add few studies mentioning similar mitigation measures practiced elsewhere in the world to give your discussion a literature support.	The discussion section was improved and the latest related examples were included from other countries having the same problems from lines; 238-242, 274-276, 307-314 and 358-365.
3.      Policy implication of the work.	The policy statement was focused on in the discussion section from lines; 371-374.
4.      Conclusion improvement	The conclusion was also improved and supported by major results and findings with future recommendations.

 

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This study aimed to evaluate the exogenous bacterial agents on material transformation and microbial community composition during composting of tomato stalks. The topic is important to carry out detailed investigation of the efficacy of microbial agents. Authors have conducted comparative analysis of different microbial agents. The discussion does not reflect the results, being necessary to rewrite it. Therefore, I recommend that a major overhaul is needed. The following are key issues that may be helpful for authors to improve this manuscript. Please carefully revise abstract of this article. Scientific community prefer to see quantitative results with statistical values.

1) The importance of the study should be described more clearly.

2) There are several research articles published about this topic, therefore, please highlight the novelty statement of this work in 3 bullet points.

3) Are the microbial agents used are environmentally friendly? In addition, they need to relate the data discussed with the results found.

4) Where did the (500 gA, 100 gB, 100 gC, 20 gD and 50 gE) values come from? Have preliminary tests been developed? are concentrations found environmentally? are nominal concentrations?

5) Indicate the ''n'' in each test performed.

6) In the data analysis item, the authors indicated that statistical differences would be indicated by p<0.05. However, the tables indicate a difference of p<0.01 as well. I suggest rewriting or changing the tables.

7) I strongly suggest you to incorporate error bars in Figure 1, 2, 3 and 4.

8) The first and second paragraphs of the discussions do not represent the results, I suggest putting them in the introduction and methodology section.

9)  The authors only discussed changes in bacterial community structure of this study, I suggest rewriting pointing to discussion and compare it with literature. For your reference there are several studies related to this topic check Sardar et al. 2021 BITE, EP.

10) I suggest presenting the possible hypotheses in results and discussion section as raised in the introduction.

11) Authors state “studies point to” (plural) but only one reference is cited at the end of the sentence. Please, correct it.

12) Experimental design: would the authors have some photographs to illustrate the test? It would be interesting to include Figure 1 bringing a panel with these images.

13) Data analysis: please mention the software used to perform the statistical analyses.

14) when p-values are significant, please specify in relation to which group or concentration and must write in at respective place.

15) Line # 340-343: again, this sentence is very confusing. Please make this clearer.

16) The cellulose degradation rate leveled off at the later stages of composting and was significantly higher in T1 treatment than in T6 at the end of composting. Explain the mechanism behind these results.

17) Add table 2 in the supplementary materials.

18) The resolution of figures 6a and 7a is low. Improve its image quality.

19) Actinobacteria are capable of producing heat-tolerant spores, which help them to resist unfavorable environments and promote lignocellulose degradation by inducing microorganisms that produce lignocellulose hydrolases. I recommend you to strengthen this argument with a previously published reports doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2021.786592 and doi.org/10.1186/s12302-021-00535-6.

20) In addition, the GI in the treatment groups were all higher than the control group, and the GI in T2 and T4 was as high as 105.6% and 103.5%? How you got these results?? GI (%) can be 100% but not more than 100%. Please double check it.

21) Also correct formula of GI calculation. It is in %. You may refer Sardar et al., 2021, BITE, EP.

22) why the EC value of compost feedstock was generally high, and the amount of water-soluble salt was decreased by high ammonia volatilization as the temperature of the compost increased?? How you link it with other physiochemical properties?

 

 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers Manuscript ID# water-2033151

 

 

Reviewer 2.
Comments	Responses
1.      Comments on exogenous bacteria-related studies.	The comments are not relevant to the current manuscript and are not discussed in our work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The main aim of the article is to present the results of the water quality parameters of drinking water resources. However, this goal is not emphasized in the introduction to this article. Please decide in which person the text is written - impersonal or first person plural. Please also indicate what distinguishes this article from other articles on a similar topic. Figure 1 is difficult to read. In the chapter on the geology of areas, there is a description of the river network. The chapter needs much improvement. The collected research results should be described in more detail. This mainly applies to the results section. English needs to be corrected.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers Manuscript ID# water-2033151

 

Reviewer 3.
Comments	Responses
1.      Introduction improvement is needed.	The introduction section was further improved focusing on the water quality assessment parameters.
2.      Text writing.	The text has been written in 1st person plural notation.
3.      Uniqueness of the article.	The uniqueness of the manuscript has been focused on in the last paragraph of the introduction and discussion sections emphasizing the health dilemma and development of baseline data on unexplored water resources.
4.      Figure 1. visibility	The Figure 1. Was improved and the hotspot areas have been listed in bold text format for better understanding.
5.      Geology of the area and river network explanation.	The geologic topography has been explained further. The study was not focused on the river water, instead, it is focused on the ground and spring waters therefore the rivers were not focused as much as ground and spring water including the mixing regime and polymictic nature of the area.
6.      Results need improvement.	Results were improved further.
7.      English language.	The English language was also improved.

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear authors, thank you for submitting the manuscript to the journal of Water. Its topic is very interesting. However, I have the following comments/questions for the authors:

Abstract

·         Line 25: The water quality parameters such as physicochemical, microbiological, anions, and heavy metals were tested. (Please change "physicochemical" to "physical").

·         Line 31: Don’t use abbreviation on the first time, such as WHO. Define full form for the first time than after use abbreviation only (Please check in the entire manuscript).

·         Line 32: The inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES). Please delete it from the abstract section.  

·         The authors ought to re-write the abstract so that it briefly presents the problem at hand, objectives of the study, methods used to achieve the objectives in logical order. Also, abstract section should be completed with the results of the study.

Introduction

·         The introduction of the manuscript was poorly written. Try to highlight the regional or national significance of this study.

·         In introduction chapter please focus on problem generally, on the basis of examples in the whole World, not your study area.

·         Add some facts and figures of surface water quality around the globe in your introduction.

·         Why did you take only mentioned water quality indicators?? Justify it.

·         Add some recent article to make your introduction more attractive and strong. I propose to add this survey method in the overview section of the introduction section, based on the latest literature. Please replace old citations (if it is possible) or add citations of newest literature.

https://doi.org/10.3390/w14071131

https://doi.org/10.3390/w13162258

·         At the end of the Introduction section, it is helpful to provide the further structure of the manuscript, which will improve the clarity of the text.

Materials and Methods

Sampling Area

·         Describe all the features of the study area in brief including climate, topography, geology, and hydrogeology?

·         Would you please give more information about the River (e.g., max depth, average precipitation and evaporation, the prevalent climate, mixing regime, warm monomictic or polymictic)?

Sampling and analyses

·         (Please change this section to Sampling and analyses)

·         Sampling locations were selected carefully within Neelam River, Pakistan to have a good representation of the spatial variability of quality indicators across-section of water quality monitoring. What criteria where analyzed to select this locations?

·         Please give detailed information about the instruments, which used for analyses (e.g., accuracy, manufacturer).

·         Please support your methods by providing appropriate references or give the guidelines used to analyze the water quality parameters.

·         Please provide detailed detection methods and quality control results?

·         How did you do quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) on the obtained data to validate the conclusions?

Discussion

·         You should think how transformational the research is likely to be should be made so that the outcome of the work will have an impact on the community/society facing given sustainability related challenges?

·         Write the practical applications of your work in a separate section, before the conclusions and provide your good perspectives.

·         What are the likely research impacts of this work globally, nationally and locally?

·         Why do you believe your research to be important? What long-term impacts will it have on environmental protection and the wider public or the field following the completion of the research?

Conclusion

·         Concise the text in conclusion and add future work in order to recommend your work. Shorten the length of each and every paragraph by adding only relevant and major findings in your study.

·         At the end of the Conclusions section, you need to add the limitations of the manuscript and the possibilities for future research in this area.

Please respond to all of those comments in the revised manuscript by pointing out precisely and concisely on which page and in which line you have incorporated your response one by one.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers Manuscript ID# water-2033151

Reviewer 4.
Comments	Responses
1.      Abstract improvement is needed.	The abstract was further refined, and the corrections were incorporated in lines; 25, 31, and 32.
2.      Citation improvement is needed.	The citations were improved with more recently reported relevant data.
3.      Introduction is focused on regional examples, and more facts and figures are needed.	The introduction has been improved by including examples from national and international studies and refined further (from lines; 61-64, 72-79, 88-95, 103-111, ). The facts and figures were also incorporated in the updated manuscript version.
4.      Figure 1. visibility	The Figure 1. Was improved and the hotspot areas have been listed in bold text format for better understanding.
5.      Add some recent articles to the reported data. The ending of the introduction should be improved.	The recent articles were added to the manuscript also including those recommended. At the end of the introduction, further discussion was briefly explained.
6.      Describe all the features of the study area in brief including climate, topography, geology, and hydrogeology.	Geographic, topographic and hydroclimatic features were explained in the material and methods section from lines; 125-130 and 135-145.
7.      Would you please give more information about the River (e.g., max depth, average precipitation and evaporation, the prevalent climate, mixing regime, warm monomictic or polymictic).	The study was not focused on the river water, however other features were explained in the geography and sampling section under the heading of materials and methods.
8.      Change the heading title sampling.	The heading title was changed to ‘Sampling and Analysis’ as recommended.
9.      Explain the river networks.	The study was not focused on the river water.
10.   Instrument details are needed.	The details (manufacturer, country etc.) of all instruments have been incorporated in the manuscript in lines; 157, 161, 165and 169.
11.   Give the guidelines and references of analytical methods used.	The guidelines and references for each analytical method were listed n the ‘Sampling and Analysis’ section.
12.   How did you do quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) on the obtained data to validate the conclusions?	The quality and accuracy of the data were assessed with respect to the standard calibrations mentioned in the sampling and analysis section.
13.   how transformational the research is likely to be should be made so that the outcome of the work will have an impact on the community/society.	This point has been addressed in the concluding paragraph of the discussion from lines 371-382.
14.   Write the practical applications of your work in a separate section, before the conclusions and provide your good perspectives. What are the likely research impacts of this work globally, nationally and locally?        Why do you believe your research to be important? What long-term impacts will it have on environmental protection and the wider public or the field following the completion of the research	The practical applications along with the national and global impacts of the research are also discussed in the concluding lines of the last paragraph from lines; 368-370 and 371-382.
15.   The conclusion should be concise.	The conclusion was also modified according to the suggestions.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Authors have improved the manuscript in accordance with all suggested remarks. It can be accepted in a present form.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

This paper is an interesting study and authors have investigated the water quality parameters of drinking water resources in District Neelam (DNLM), Azad Jammu, and Kashmir (AJK), northwestern Pakistan to establish a connection between the current water quality conditions of the region from a perspective of regional pollutants (bacterial and mineral) and their impact on the health of resident communities.

The article is written correctly, includes a discussion of the research findings, and a good review of the literature. The results are presented in a clearly structured manner. The manuscript has been significantly improved and can now be accepted in current form.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

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

Review Report:

Even though the study is robust, unfortunately,  the interpretation and presentation has no new message for the readers. Thus, it is recommended to add following changes to benefit from wide readability: 

1. The manuscript is good but what is the new message. Most of the developing economies has similar situation, i.e., their water bodies are suffering the aftermath of population increase, migration to cities and the city planners are not able to cope up with the utility provisioning and sanitisation demand. Many more similar publication are available. What is the new message that the authors wants to share with the research community? 

2. Add the following in discussion section:

a. Recommendation on mitigation measure that can be adapted to improve the water quality and quality of life around it. Some examples can be taken from developed economies

b. What kind of policy support is required to voice the research to the policy makers to bring out significant changes in saving the water bodies?

3. Are the authors considering Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) aspect in their research? If so, please provide more details on the population health index associated with poor drinking water supply, surface water pollution, poor access to sanitisation, open defecation, etc. in the studies area.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments

The authors investigated the chemical and microbial quality of some surface water and groundwater (springs) sources in northern Pakistan.  The abstract makes no sense; very confusing. The study background is incoherent. The authors lack basic principles of manuscript preparation; even how to cite articles is a problem. Please read Writing Scientific Research Articles: Strategy and Steps, 2nd Edition by Margaret Cargill, Patrick O'Connor. The English is bizarre. Citation and references do not follow the journal’s style (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water/instructions). The methodology has some issues especially EC and TDS measurements besides using old-fashioned methods to analyse anions. There were no calibration of metres, so questionable field records in general. The result section is a mess; poor organization/presentation of facts, tables and figures with a lot of repetitions. Reading the discussion is very irritating, many unfounded claims and assumptions. The authors did not read what they wrote. Some phrases are repeated at least thrice in the text. This is a hastily and poorly prepared manuscript; there is no sense of direction or purpose. It has been worsened by the poor English. This is worse manuscript I have ever read. I do not recommend it for publication in this reputable journal. I have made specific comments below.

Specific comments

A very poorly written abstract; inconsistent.

Page 1, Line

Lines 41, 55, 61, 65-66, 83, 111, 230, 231-232, 241; 260: You should begin by learning how to cite articles. I have never seen this citation style in my career.

Line 24 and 46, Table 1: EC: Electrical conductance or conductivity?

Line 61-62: Very poor English

Line 85: WHO and EPA in which years?

Line: AJ & K must be defined at the first mention in the text. The abstract is independent of the entire text.

Figure 1: Font size of wordings should be increased esp. the Legend.

Line 112-115: Plagiarism. Cite the source.

Line 117: Is this citation for description of the study area?????????

Results

Results of 60 samples are not too many to present on a Table.  

Table 1: Colon labelled N for number of samples makes no sense (same in Tables 2, 3 and 4). Your maximum EC and TDS values are 912 and 947, respectively. It is very unusual to find TDS being higher than EC in water. How was TDS measured? In your methodology, there is no mention of metre calibration during sampling. This could give faulty measurements.

Line 149-150: Tables and Figures are usually presented in the order in which they appear in the text. You do not expect the reader to leave from Table 1 to 5 and then come back to continue from Table 2.

Table 1, Line 34: Which is the difference between total dissolved solids or total-dissolved-solid?

Line 155-156: You are under Results section not Methodology.

Figure 2 is presented without a first mention in the text.

Line 155-160, Figures 3 and 4: It is a norm to present a table/figure and then describe/explain it rather the other way round. You cannot reinvent the wheel. Besides, this your table 2 has no meaning. The information in it as well as in Tables 3 and 4 can be included in Table 1. So Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 should be a single Table

Table 5, Line 171: Check this limit well and cite the year. The WHO 2011 guideline value of NO3 is 50 mg/l (11.3 mg/l for nitrite).

Line 197-199, 245-248: Unnecessary repetition.

Line 199-215: This info can be presented a table and simply interpreted. Results of 60 samples are not too many to present on a Table.

Line 222: WHO in which year?

Table 5: Footnote: …Coliform and E.coli

Line 240-241: You have a serious citation problem.

Line 248-250: baseless claim.

Line 254-255: How many times do you have to remind the reader of this phrase. See Line 225-228, Line 155-157. Is it an innovation in this study?

Line 256-257, you probably did not read what you want others to read for you. See Line 228-229

Your references have %; is this normal or copy and paste.