Exploration on Optimized Control Way of D-Amino Acid for Efficiently Mitigating Membrane Biofouling of Membrane Bioreactor
, Zhihao Yu 1, Xiaoli Zhang 1, Shougang Fan 1, Huiyu Gao 1, Caini Liu 1, Qixing Zhou 1, Huaiqi Shao 2, Lan Wang 1 and Xiaoyan Guo 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This research evaluated the anti-fouling performance of D-Tyrosine as bio-fouling reducers for MBR operation. The results of the study provide quite interesting and meaningful data that other researchers can be refer to. However, it seems that detail explanations or partial corrections are required to have better understanding of experimental results.
- In Fig 3. three cycle were applied, would you explain why time to reach the limit TMP (30kPa) is shorter as the order progresses (especially PAN, Before running, DAA as active agents)? From this point of view, doesn't continuous operation gradually reduce the DAA effect?
- Does the absence of an independent variable(x2) of "DAA adding time" in the MLR model of Equation 3 mean that the contribution is relatively small? further explanation is recommended.
- What is the mean of "VIF" at line 284?
- Membrane permeate flux of 1.2 L·m-2· h-1 seems quite low. Do you have special reason to keep this flux?
- At line 335-339, it is hard to find out how the 40.24% fouling rate reduction was calculated. Further explanation is also recommended how it agreed with experimental results obtained in section 3.2.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting work assessing the biofouling mitigations by D-amino acid. The manuscript is clear and, in my opinion, the topic is of undoubted interest. I think that a significant contribution in the field of study.
However, this manuscript is a preliminary study about the inhibition biofilm formation and disintegrating formed biofilm. In my opinion, a study about this fouling needs a long-term test, the authors using short-term test (2-4 days). I suggest additional test to the conclusions are clearly supported by the results
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I thinks that long-term experiment is better that a prediction. However the conclusions are supported by the results.
