Operation Status and Effective Operation Management Model for On-Site Swine Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors investigate the operation status and effective operation management model for on-site swine wastewater treatment facilities. The reviewer suggests following revisions before the publication to the journal.
1) Figure 1 should be more visible. This figure seems to have been expanded to east-west direction, which decreases the accuracy of the scale for north-south direction. In addition, some characters are not visible.
2) Figure 2 seems to have been expanded to vertical direction. The reviewer suggests that the circle figure in Figure 2 can be shown as a separate figure.
3) Table 1 shows water quality data. However, it is not clear what is the source of the data. Table 1 shows the number of the monitored facility is 105 ( = 64 + 32 + 9, although the authors mentioned in the section 2.1 that the number of the facilities is 32 in this region. In the section 2.3 they did field survey for 38, although it is not clear whether the data shown in table 1 have been obtained by the field survey. It is necessary to mention clearly the source of the data for table 1. In figure 3, the same suggestion can be applied. The number of facilities must be shown in the figure and the source of the data (such as the inquiry to the owners) must be shown in the text.
4) The calculation method for figure 4 is not mentioned in the text. It is necessary to mention how they obtained this figure.
5) Figure 5 is not visible. It is necessary to increase the resolution of the figure. In addition, it is advised to add the source of the data (such as inquiry to the owners of the facilities) in the figure caption.
6) In figures 6 and 7, the reviewer recommended to add “Gyeonggi province” in the figure captions, if the figures only apply the province.
7) Please increase the resolution of Figure 8, in which thin lines are not visible.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe reviewer did not notice fatal problems in the language.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis work describes the operational status of individual purification facilities with field analyses and surveys and then discusses the operation management model for these swine wastewater treatment facilities. Although the manuscript is well prepared, there are several areas that need improvement before it can be accepted for publication.
1. The abstract should be revised to ensure it is concise while including the study’s purpose, methodology, results and conclusions.
2. Page 1, lines 38-40: the data provided by the authors for swine production is from different years for the Netherlands (2014) and the United States (2007). It would be better to have data from the same time for both countries as the seven-year gap could affect the comparison. Also, using the most recent data available would be more beneficial considering 2014 was a decade ago.
3. Page 2, line 49: it should be careful to include Taiwan as a country due to the political sensitivities and differing perspectives regarding Taiwan's status.
4. Page 2, lines 52-54: what happened to the remaining manure?
5. Page 2, lines 55-60: it would be more logical to place the paragraph about utilizing pig manure as fertilizer after the paragraph about using pig manure use as a nutrient for crops on farmland (lines 42-48).
6. Page 2, lines 86 and 88: the authors mentioned that the effluent standards for individual purification facilities are higher than those for public treatment facilities, but they also stated that public treatment facilities have stricter effluent standards (lines 82 and 83). Does this make sense? Besides, do the higher effluent standards for individual purification facilities have a larger impact on the quality of nearby river waters?
7. 2.2. River Water Quality Monitoring: How do the rivers flow? This helps to determine the upstream and downstream areas.
8. Table 1: Instead of summarizing the average and data range in a table, a figure such as box chart, violin plot, dot plot would better summarize and visualize data distributions. These figures provide insights into the spread, central tendency, and overall pattern of the data, allowing for easier comparison of multiple data sets.
9. Figures 3 and 4: It is important to provide a clear legend explanation, specifying what the symbols (e.g., O and X in the parentheses) represent.
10. Minor comments:
Figures: the quality of the figures needs improvement. For example, the text in Figure 5 is unclear
Page 4, line 162: “are perform” should be revised.
Page 4, lines 166 and 167: “thee nitrified nitrogen” should be “the nitrified nitrogen” and there are two periods at the end of this sentence.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageProof-reading is required for the entire text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your very detailed and thoughtful reply to my comments. I think it is a very interesting and well-thought-out study. However, the language should be improved prior to publication. For instance, in line 61, “In countries such as Korea, where pig manure is treated in facilities…” is redundant with line 46, “In other countries such as Korea and Japan, pig manure is partially treated…”. Additionally, the quality of the figures needs further improvement. For example, the text in Figure 6 is unclear. Please check all the figures to ensure clarity.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language should be thoroughly improved prior to publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your response to my comments.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageCan be improved.
