Next Article in Journal
A Practical, Adaptive, and Scalable Real-Time Control Approach for Stormwater Storage Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Water Management as a Social Field: A Method for Engineering Solutions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Using Treated Wastewater for Non-Potable Household Uses in Peri-Urban India: Is It Affordable for the Users?
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Performance Evaluation of a Pilot-Scale Constructed Wetland with Typha latifolia for Remediation of Domestic Wastewater in Zimbabwe

Water 2024, 16(19), 2843; https://doi.org/10.3390/w16192843
by Richwell Alufasi 1, Wilson Parawira 2, Cuthbert J. Zvidzai 1, Alexandros I. Stefanakis 3, Nancy Musili 4, Phiyani Lebea 5, Ereck Chakauya 6,7 and Walter Chingwaru 8,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Water 2024, 16(19), 2843; https://doi.org/10.3390/w16192843
Submission received: 10 September 2024 / Revised: 25 September 2024 / Accepted: 29 September 2024 / Published: 7 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Water Quality, Wastewater Treatment and Water Recycling)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper evaluates the performance of a pilot-scale vertical flow constructed wetland (VFCW) system planted with Typha latifolia for treating domestic wastewater in Zimbabwe. It examines the removal efficiencies of various pollutants, including biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solids (TSS), and E. coli, among others. I  believe this is an excellent piece of work, and the research being conducted is incredibly important for the community. The focus on sustainable wastewater treatment solutions has significant potential to improve public health and environmental quality in developing regions. I commend the authors for their dedication to addressing such a vital issue. Keep up the great work! Neverthless, I would like to authors to address these minor issues:

1) Line 21: Please revise this sentence;

2) Line 27: There is some techinical problems related to the formatting

3) Figure 3 and 4 are in very low resolution.

4) I would also recommend to include a short discussion about the local engagement. Although the study is set in Zimbabwe, there is limited engagement with local social, economic, or infrastructural factors that may affect the wider implementation of the technology.

Overall, the methodology, results, and discussion are well-organized, making the research easy to follow. Moreover, the findings have clear real-world implications for wastewater treatment, particularly in regions lacking advanced infrastructure. Therefore, recommend publication after minor revisions.

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper studied the efficiency of vertical flow constructed wetlands planted with Typha latifolia in the treatment of domestic wastewater in tropical country Zimbabw. The following comments should be concerned to improve the manuscript.

1.      Please check if each unit was loaded with wastewater at a rate of 220m3 /day for the dimensions of each unit was 1m x 1m x 1.1m.

2.      Two batches per day of equal doses of 110dm3 giving a hydraulic residence time of eight days. The hydraulic load should be 220m3 /day.

3.      The resolution of the figures seems low and not clear.

4.      Why some indices in effluent 4 in Fig.4 are higher than that in the influent such as COD, BOD5.

5.      What are the difference of PhPen-phosphorus pentoxide, Phrus-phosphorus, Ptes-phoshates in Fig.5? Phoshates should be phosphates.

6.      In some figures, there are no data of CW3.

7.      How about composition of the influent?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper studied the efficiency of vertical flow constructed wetlands planted with Typha latifolia in the treatment of domestic wastewater in tropical country Zimbabw. The following comments should be concerned to improve the manuscript.

1.      Please check if each unit was loaded with wastewater at a rate of 220m3 /day for the dimensions of each unit was 1m x 1m x 1.1m.

2.      Two batches per day of equal doses of 110dm3 giving a hydraulic residence time of eight days. The hydraulic load should be 220m3 /day.

3.      The resolution of the figures seems low and not clear.

4.      Why some indices in effluent 4 in Fig.4 are higher than that in the influent such as COD, BOD5.

5.      What are the difference of PhPen-phosphorus pentoxide, Phrus-phosphorus, Ptes-phoshates in Fig.5? Phoshates should be phosphates.

6.      In some figures, there are no data of CW3.

7.      How about composition of the influent?

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This version has been revised carefully according to the review points. In my opinion, it can be accepted in its present form.

Back to TopTop