Odorous Substances in Urban Drainage Pipelines and the Removal Technology: A Review
, Kejia Zhang 1,2,*, Cheng Cen 1,2, Youwen Shuai 1,2, Tingting Hu 1,2 and Ruyin Mao 1,2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper entitled “O dorous substances in urban drainage pipelines and the removal technology: A review” meets the necessary standards for publication in this journal.
Please check the entire manuscript carefully for possible typographical errors.
Attention when writing references. They are not unitary.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
The contents of the attachment are shown below for your convenience.
Point 1: Paper entitled “Odorous substances in urban drainage pipelines and the removal technology: A review” meets the necessary standards for publication in this journal.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your positive comments. We learn a lot from this revision process. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections according to your suggestions, which we hope meet with approval.
Point 2: Please check the entire manuscript carefully for possible typographical errors.
Response 2: Thank you for your kind reminder. We have carefully checked this manuscript again to ensure there is no typographical error.
Point 3: Attention when writing references. They are not unitary.
Response 3: Thanks for your kind rectification. We have checked the “Reference” again to ensured that the names of journals all remained abbreviated and DOI numbers of all journals is added. The format of references is now unitary.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper entitled: „Odorous substances in urban drainage pipelines and the removal technology: A review” deals with a review that analyzed odor problems in drainage pipelines. First, the main odor substances in drainage pipelines and their risks to humans are listed. The sources of these odorants are also discussed. Next, several commonly used or promising in-situ deodorization techniques are classified and presented. Importantly, the prospect of future development toward in-situ deodorization techniques is also presented.
I think that the manuscript presents high scientific quality.
The topic was presented in a correct and clear manner. Authors presented the issues in a comprehensive manner. The literature was selected correctly. The numerous references presented to studies in the literature significantly improve the quality of the manuscript.
I consider that the article offered to me for review can be accepted in its present form for publication in the Water journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
The contents of the attachment are shown below for your convenience.
Point 1: The paper entitled: “Odorous substances in urban drainage pipelines and the removal technology: A review” deals with a review that analyzed odor problems in drainage pipelines. First, the main odor substances in drainage pipelines and their risks to humans are listed. The sources of these odorants are also discussed. Next, several commonly used or promising in-situ deodorization techniques are classified and presented. Importantly, the prospect of future development toward in-situ deodorization techniques is also presented.
I think that the manuscript presents high scientific quality.
The topic was presented in a correct and clear manner. Authors presented the issues in a comprehensive manner. The literature was selected correctly. The numerous references presented to studies in the literature significantly improve the quality of the manuscript.
I consider that the article offered to me for review can be accepted in its present form for publication in the Water journal.
Response 1: Thanks very much for your positive comments. We are very grateful for your patience paid in our work. Your comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have tried our best to improve this manuscript so that it will not disappoint your encouragement.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this study, the authors summarized odorous substances in urban drainage pipelines and the removal technology. The topic is interesting and valuable, but this paper needs to revise carefully in many places before it can be considered in a high-impact journal like Water. Hope below comments will be able to help to further improve the paper:
1. Abstract, the expression of the results needs to be clearer.
2. The introduction should be re-considered and the unnecessary information could be deleted and the explanation of the novelty should be supplemented in detail.
3. It is recommended to extend the discussion and comparison of the study with other similar published work.
4. Conclusions and prospects: "Various studies so far have claimed the harm odorous substances caused, but the main treatment site for the majority of sewage is still concentrated in WWTPs", "The research on odor control technology in drainage pipelines is mainly limited to the control and removal of H2S" and "In terms of the techniques for controlling odor in situ, there remain three key issues to be solved" did not show any scientific information. Please rewrite conclusions and prospects.
5. The two related literature research work should be cited: Chemical Engineering Journal 2022, 431: 133232; Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56(14): 10412-10422.
6. English must be improved. There are some confusing sentences, wrong verb tenses, and grammatical errors in the manuscript that can be corrected with a more careful revision.
Author Response
We are very grateful for your patience paid in our work. Your suggestions are greatly appreciated. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, ensuring that every point you mentioned has been clarified. And we hope these modifications will meet with approval.
Please see the attachment for the detailed response.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been improved greatly and the authors give positive responses to the comments. It can be accepted.
