Production, Application, and Efficacy of Biodefoamers from Bacillus, Aeromonas, Klebsiella, Comamonas spp. Consortium for the Defoamation of Poultry Slaughterhouse Wastewater

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: “Production, application, and efficacy of biodefoamers from Ba-cillus, Aeromonas, Klebsiella, Comamonas spp. consortium for the defoamation of poultry slaughterhouse wastewater”. 

After reviewing the present manuscript, reviewer found that the authors made very interesting work and all required analysis for the production, application, and efficacy of biodefoamers from Ba-cillus, Aeromonas, Klebsiella, Comamonas spp. consortium for the defoamation of poultry slaughterhouse wastewater. I found that this manuscript is very fit with the Water MDPI and need minor revision for publication.

 1.   It is suggested for the authors to include the highlights, to state the significant findings of the research project.

 2.   Authors need to improve the fonts of Figures. Moreover, the figures seem to be of low resolution, and the axes of graphs are not clear. It is best if the authors can attempt to and include images of high resolution and also the graphs.

 3.   Line 291-Correct the table number

 4.   References must be included when referring or stating the work done by other researchers.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for taking time to review our work, which has improved the paper.We have attached our response.

 

Kind Regards

Moses

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

English writing should be enhanced and the paper should be proofread carefully. 

All Figures presented have very low and unpublishable quality. The figure quality and image resolution for ALL the figures should be improved before the manuscript can be reconsidered. 

Abstract: the writing needs to be enhanced but the content is logical and makes sense. The novelty and contributions of the work is not highlighted in the abstract. 

Keywords: Activated sludge treatment is missing from the keywords.

Introduction: The problem statement and justification for the research need are not robust. The literature review is very brief and missing gap analysis and discussions that make the case for this research (i.e. why this research was needed and what gap of knowledge will be addressed?).
recent work on methods of AS treatment should be mentioned  (doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2021.01.030) to provide the readers with more holistic information about AS and the challenges in dealing with it.
Consideration of energy optimization is a relevant matter and an important aspect of your work (doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08277-3; doi.org/10.2166/wst.2020.220), you should elaborate on the importance of achieving energy efficiency in WWT processes and how the research undertaken is helping towards this. Further, biological wastewater treatment systems are very sensitive to climatic patterns but this climate dependency of these systems is not mentioned and discussed in the literature (doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99867-1_122; doi.org/10.1007/s11270-018-4053-1).

Method: I think the information required for this section is mostly provided. References are needed to back the standardized test process. 

Results and Discussion: all the figures presented in this section are very poor in quality/resolution and it is difficult to read and understand them. The discussions of the results are not in-depth and not much effort is made to compare the findings with the existing knowledge in the field. Having read the results, I am not sure what is the novel findings and contributions of this work. These points need to be improved in the revision. 

Conclusions should reflect on the study's significance, and highlight the novelty and contribution(s) of the work. This is not realised in the current draft. 

Author Response

Thank you for taking time to review our work, which has improved the paper.We have attached our response.

 

Kind Regards

Moses

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript and mostly addressed the comments raised in the previous round of revision which is good. The manuscript has been improved; however, there remain a few outstanding issues to be addressed before publication. Please revise the manuscript following the below points: 

The abstract is nearly one page, is this necessary? can you shorten the length by more consice writing? 

I can see you added Highlights. This is usually part of Elsevier Journal fomatting. Is it necessary to mention Highlights here or can you just simply add it to the conclusions? 

The Introduction section is impeoved. As mentioned previously, brief discussions should be added on the sensitivity of biological wastewater treatment systems to climatic patterns (doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99867-1_122; doi.org/10.1007/s11270-018-4053-1).

Material and methods is significantly improved, no further comments for this section. 

Results and Discussions: overall, quality of figures are not good, and figure formatting is not consistent. 
Figure 3 - can you use different colors for bio and synthetic defoamer and control to make it more distinctly understandable. 

Figures 5 and 6 are not cited in the text and no discussions about them is provided. You should cite these figures where relevant and provide in-depth discussions of the results presented in these figures. 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers

Thank you very much for taking time to review out paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript according to the comments raised by the reviewers. Proofreading is required before the manuscript is published.