Feasibility Study of Native Ureolytic Bacteria for Biocementation Towards Coastal Erosion Protection by MICP Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is well written and the topic is suitable for Applied Sciences journal, I suggest that this paper can be accepted for publication in Applied Sciences journal if the following major comment is carefully addressed.

What are the uncertainties in your research? What are the reasons for the uncertainties?

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

"Please see the attachment"

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper shows experimental results on the behaviour of the MICP method with reference to specific environmental conditions. It is an interesting research, but it does not show any practical application for coastal erosion protection or sandy beach morphodynamic evolution.

In my opinion, the paper title does not reflect actually the findings reported in the manuscript. It is misleading with respect to the main aim of the ms. In the abstract, as well as in the introductions section and in the conclusions, a novel approach based on a combination of geotubes and MICP is declared, but any examples, or specific studies are reported. Moreover, it is not clear why the proposed method can be considered sustainable under both economical and environmental point of view. 

The correction of some English language issues is also required. Some examples are listed below:

L. 14 'in this study focused'

L. 17 'a novel design have been proposed'

L. 33 'from this erosion'; 'shoreline protection construction'

L. 72 'they used'

L. 87 'and Table 1'

L. 225 'are representing'

L. 227 'and on the other hand, and '

L. 343 'it almost constant'

L. 362 'Form the figure is has been observed'

In the introduction section same concepts are repeated many times, without giving to the readers any specific information. For example: L. 50 why the UV penetration is not sustainable? L. 70 which environmental factors the authors refer to? L. 73/75 which are the adverse effects and impact on ecosystem of MICP?

The paper could be suitable to be published but the authors are mainly requested to change the main aim of the manuscript and, in my opinion, the title. Consequently,  a review of the structure of the paper would highly improve its quality. I suggest to refer in the introduction section to the previous findings reported in Imran et al. 2017 and underline the motivations leading to the new research. 

 

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment"

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors satisfactorily changed the ms according to my comments. Now the title reflects the main topic of the paper. 

Some language issues have to be solved. I suggest using the simple present tense in the abstract (e.g., L. 15 concentrated--> focuses; L. 18 'have been'--> are). Some other examples are listed below:

L. 35 'consisting of the sea wall and the shoreline protection structures had been adopted'--> consisting of hard and soft defence protection systems are  adopted. 

L. 36 'Costly' --> expensive

L. 49 Geo-tubes are not the only soft measures used in coastal protection. Further recent relevant reference on soft defense structures could be added (e.g., on the beach drainage system and vegetation)

L. 74 please, eliminate colon after 'for example' and 'that need' --> need

L.81 it is not clear why Greece is mentioned. please specify better that it refers to the study area. 

L. 94 please change 'most extensive'

L.124 please declare the acronymous PCR

L. 234 'Figure 3(a) represented the cell growth and Figure 3(b) and Figure 3(c) illustrated' --> Figure 3(a) represents the cell growth, whereas Figures 3(b) and 3(c) illustrate

L. 376 'could that' --> could be

L. 396 please, eliminate comma between approach and figure 10

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf