Analysis on Mode and Benefit of Resource Utilization of Rural Sewage in a Typical Chinese City
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper analysis the current situation of resource utilization of rural domestic sewage in China and takes 10 stations in Yongkang City of Zhejiang Province as pilot project. Meanwhile, a huge innovation and practicality are demonstrated in this study. However, There are still some shortcomings or questions that need to be answered in this investigation.
1: The clarity and resolution of all images in the article need to be improved, such as the inability to accurately read each city name in Figure 1. The resolution is generally guaranteed to be above 600dpi.
2：In Lines 147, the first appearance of COD will make readers unable to feel confused, and it is necessary to indicate the meaning it represents.
3：In Table 1 , NH3-N, TN, and TP also need to be labeled in the text for easy understanding. Similarly, there are 192 related abbreviations.
4: In Lines 196 and 204, Why are two table2 displayed?
5: Lines 38-40, Related description need strong references (â‘ 10.1007/s40948-022-00396-0 â‘¡ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26279-9 â‘¢ 10.1016/j.molliq.2023.121394 )as supporting basis.
6: In Table 5, Why does “Conventional waterresources utilization” not have data for “Emission reducing potential”?
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper concerns the issue of average interest for international audiences. The main problem is that the text is chaotic and difficult to understand. In the introduction, the authors write that in China, in rural areas, sewage is not treated. After that, analyze stations that collect and treat sewage. The description of the station is not enough. We do not know what treatment processes are applied and why the raw sewage has untypical parameters (e.g., low COD). Other parts of the paper describe the experimental results with the sewage posttreatment. The data are interested but there is not enough description of the treatment processes. The most valuable part is calculations of the environmental and social benefits. However, they are based only on several parameters. Are not compared to other treatment systems. The authors do not analyze the problem of waste products generated.
The paper needs major revisions> Especially:
1. The idea of the treatment stations should be described more clearly. Please include the data on how they work.
2. The analysis of social and environmental benefits should include more parameters, e.g. comparison of other systems and management of waste products.
3. The results seem to be only the preliminary ones. Several average values are included. Please show more detailed data on the variability of the parameters.
A native speaker should check the English.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Strength: There were made analyses in order to sustain your hypothesis regarding reusing rural sewage.
Weakness:
In the article are presented information regarding the water sources of Yongkang and, from figure 2 it is clear that the sewage resource stations are nearby the water sources. So, it is not very clear to me what is done with the wastewater that has been treated considering the fact that, for some of the analyzed stations, the results for the analyzed quality indicators show quite clearly that the wastewater treatment stations are not working very well. Are those treated waters discharged into natural receptors that are nearby or are they stored?
It is presented that a rural domestic sewage treatment skid-mounted equipment were used but it is not clear if that equipment were installed or not to one of the studied station or to all 10 stations.
Also, it is not clear for me why the comparison was made between the irrigation period and the non-irrigation period? Where are the results for non-irrigation period? What was the purpose of these comparisons?
Although it were made some analyses it is not clear what is, in China, the legislation for quality of water used in agriculture in order to know if the water result after the treatment in a WWTP it is good or not to be reused.
Specific comments
Line 126 – Pay attention to `1049km2`.
Line 167 – Please write it with capital letter the word `treatment`.
Line 215-216 - Pay attention to `BOD 47.85t ,NH3-N 5.62t and TP0.39t`.
Line 232 - Pay attention to ` to the literature [29], The formula …`.
Line 240-241 – Pay attention to `??=0.176 kWh/ m3, ??=0.358 kWh/m3.`; there are some blank spaces missing....
Line 236 – Pay attention to ` which generally ranges from 0.018-0.2kWh/m3[30]. Take the average in this studyï¼›` I don`t understand what is the meaning of the last phrase.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author has made comprehensive revisions to the relevant questions, and I believe they can be accepted and published.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have improved the paper, so I suggest publishing it in its present form.
The quality is average, bus satisfactroy.
