Characterization of Silica Sand-Based Pervious Bricks and Their Performance under Stormwater Treatment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The manuscript titled “Characterization of Silica-Sand Based Pervious Bricks and Their Performance for Stormwater Treatment” introduces a novel permeable filtration material based on silica sand and evaluates its effectiveness in stormwater treatment. The study fills a gap in the literature, offering insights that are valuable to both academic and industry professionals. The findings have the potential to guide future research and make a tangible impact in real-world stormwater management applications. Overall, the study is generally well-conducted, but some minor revisions are necessary to refine the manuscript further.

 

1.     The abstract is generally clear, but some sentences could be streamlined for readability. Consider simplifying complex phrases. Such as Lines 15-18;

2.     The second table should be correctly labeled as Table 2, not Table 1. Additionally, in this table, the abbreviation "TN" should be revised to "TN-N," or alternatively, the unit should be changed to "mg N/L" to accurately reflect the measurement.

3.     Line 409: In the phrase “By utilizing this structure, gas (such as CO2, O2) and heat exchange,” the chemical symbols CO2 and O2 should be formatted with subscripts for proper scientific notation.

4.     Section 2.4: Correct the notations for nitrate (NO3--N), nitrite (NO2--N), and ammonium (NH4+-N), and perform a thorough check throughout the manuscript to avoid similar issues.

5.     There are some minor formatting issues, such as inconsistent spacing between the data and unit, such as Line 99-100 (900x450x100mm, permeable layer (5mm)) and Line 116 (≤ 75μm). Reviewing the manuscript for uniformity in presentation would improve its professionalism.

 

6.     The conclusion could be made more impactful by summarizing the key findings more clearly and suggesting future research directions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

No evidence of biofilm on the surface of the tested material. The presence of biofilm cannot be demonstrated using an optical microscope. A scanning electron microscope is used for this purpose. The authors had such a microscope. Microorganisms present on the surface of the material could have been introduced with the sewage used in the experiment. The change in the color of the surface of the material does not come from biofilm either, but most likely from retained contaminants (the biofilm is colorless). In order to interpret the results reliably, a photograph from a scanning electron microscope of the surface of the material before and after the experiment should be included. The biofilm does not look as it is included in the additional materials. These are only theoretical considerations. This must be supplemented if the research results are to indicate the biological processes taking place. I have no comments on the remaining content of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

Thank you for making this work available for my contributions.

The study reports relevant information and contains information that fits the scope of Water.

Below are my contributions. All corrections should be highlighted.

 

Line 12: Add more results found in the search.

Line 19: Please pay close attention to the chemical spelling of the element, Ammonium-Nitrogen is misspelled.

Line 78: At the end of the Introduction section, I was unable to identify the problem and what motivated the study. Please, does your study have any hypothesis? This can be improved.

Line 79: A more detailed objective should be presented.

Line 163: Please detail the methodology of each analysis.

In addition, a section with statistical analyses is strongly recommended.

Line 228: Please explain better the results in Figure 4.

Line 282: Why didn't you use a mean test?

This will greatly help with the results.

Line 438: The conclusions are clear, but what can we expect from future research? This should be stated!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Must be done.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for your comprehensive answers to my doubts. I have no more comments. The manuscript can be published in its current form.

Author Response

Comments: Dear authors, thank you for your comprehensive answers to my doubts. I have no more comments. The manuscript can be published in its current form.

Response: Thank you very much for your kind words and for taking the time to review our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your insightful comments and suggestions, which have undoubtedly improved the quality of our work. We are pleased that you find the manuscript suitable for publication in its current form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

Thank you very much for making this revised version available.

The authors have done a good job and have substantially improved the manuscript.

I have just one request. An acronym was not described, please check if scanning electron microscope refers to SEM.

 

Line 164: Please change SEM to scanning electron microscope (SEM)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Needs fine tuning.

Author Response

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

Thank you very much for making this revised version available.

The authors have done a good job and have substantially improved the manuscript.

I have just one request. An acronym was not described, please check if scanning electron microscope refers to SEM.

 

Line 164: Please change SEM to scanning electron microscope (SEM)

 

 

Response: 

Thank you for your feedback and for reviewing the revised version of our manuscript. We appreciate your positive comments regarding the improvements we've made.

We have addressed the issue you raised by revising Line 164 to include the full term "scanning electron microscope (SEM)." 

We believe this change clarifies the acronym usage and enhances the manuscript's clarity.

Thank you once again for your thorough review.