Characterization of Slaughterhouse Wastewater and Development of Treatment Techniques: A Review
, Sadou Dalhatou 2, Jessica Wilson 1, Boniface Pone Kamdem 3, Mercy Bankole Temitope 4,5, Hugues Kamdem Paumo 6, Hayet Djelal 7,*, Aymen Amine Assadi 8, Phuong Nguyen-Tri 9 and Abdoulaye Kane 7,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper " Characterization of slaughterhouse wastewater and development of treatment techniques: A review” aims to explore and evaluate innovative treatments and techniques to provide a comprehensive summary of processes that can reduce the toxicity of slaughterhouse wastewater to the environment.
This paper presents a review of recent studies on the characterization of slaughterhouse wastewater, innovative treatments and technologies, and critical assessment for future research.
The paper is well written and well structured.
I suggest the article could be accepted for publication in Processes.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer 1 for the careful and insightful review of our manuscript. We also thank the reviewer 1 for accepting our work.
Reviewer 2 Report
line 24: 'slough-terhouse' should be 'sloughter house'
line 197: g/l should be changed to some other unit.
line 198: 0.85g/ml seems very high. The unit may be changed,
line 248:' (2015-2022' should be '(2015-2022).'
line 270: CODt should be tCOD.
line 274, 279: CODs should be sCOD.
line 299:' Oktavitri et al.(2019)' should be deleted.
line 305: tofu wastewater should be TWW.
line 359: Letters should not be bold letters.
Table 2: [59] NLCH4 shoukd be explained.
[68] AD should be explained.
[85] PO4 should be PO4.
[87] LCH4/Ld-day may be wrong, should be changed.
line 467: 'MFC=microbial fuel cells' should be deteled because MFC is not used in Table3.
line 503: CH4 should be CH4.
line 526, 529: H2O2 should be H2O2.
line 527: TCOD should be tCOD.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer 2 for the comments on our paper. We take them all into account to improve the paper. Please find below our answers (in blue ) to the reviewers. We hope that this new version will be suitable for publication.
line 24: 'slough-terhouse' should be 'sloughter house' : Text has been changed to “slaughterhouse”.
line 197: g/l should be changed to some other unit. Unit has been changed to µg/L, not g/L. This was likely an error in formatting.
line 198: 0.85g/ml seems very high. The unit may be changed: Unit has been changed to µg/L, not g/L. This was likely an error in formatting.
line 248:' (2015-2022' should be '(2015-2022). A closing parenthesis has been added.
line 270: CODt should be tCOD. Text has been changed to tCOD to be consistent with previous text.
line 274, 279: CODs should be sCOD. Text has been changed to sCOD to be consistent with previous text.
line 299:' Oktavitri et al.(2019)' should be deleted. This extra text has been deleted.
line 305: tofu wastewater should be TWW. This abbreviation has been added; TWW has replaced tofu wastewater.
line 359: Letters should not be bold letters. The bold text has been removed.
Table 2: [59] NLCH4 shoukd be explained. The abbrevation NLCH4.kgVS-1 mean : an average specific methane (CH4) generation per kg of VS (Volatif Solid), expressed in liters (L) at normal (N) conditions (T = 273.15 K, P = 101,325 Pa). This has been clarified in the text.
[68] AD should be explained. This text now reads “anaerobic digestion”, not AD.
[85] PO4 should be PO4. PO4 is now as a subscript.
[87] LCH4/Ld-day may be wrong, should be changed. This text has been updated to: LCH4/Ldigester-day
line 467: 'MFC=microbial fuel cells' should be deteled because MFC is not used in Table3. MFC has been deleted.
line 503: CH4 should be CH4. CH4 is now as a subscript.
line 526, 529: H2O2 should be H2O2. H2O2 is now as a subscript.
line 527: TCOD should be tCOD. Text has been changed to tCOD.
Reviewer 3 Report
This work presents a review of recent studies on the characterization and treatments technologies for slaughterhouse wastewater , it is significant, T suggest acception after minor revision.
1. I suggest a brief summary of treatments technologies of biological, physical, chemical or advanced oxidation at the last of section 3. Methods of Treatment
2. I suggest an economiccmparision of treatments technologies of biological, physical, chemical or advanced oxidation.
3. citation revision: [4], [7] should be [4, 7]?
[17], [33] should be [17, 33]?
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer 3 for the comments on our paper. Please find below our answers (in blue) to the reviewer 3. We hope that this new version will be suitable for publication.
- I suggest a brief summary of treatments technologies of biological, physical, chemical or advanced oxidation at the last of section 3. Methods of Treatment
Indeed, the work in line with what is requested by the reviewer has already been done. We propose to direct the reviewer to the discussion part where we highlight the pros/cons of treatments technologies of biological, physical, chemical, or advanced oxidation…
- I suggest an economiccmparision of treatments technologies of biological, physical, chemical or advanced oxidation.
We do agree with the reviewer that this would be a great thing to have an economic comparison of treatments technologies, but it is not within the scope of this paper to assess economic aspect of these technologies. In our study we specialy aim to illustrate recent studies on the characterization of SWW, innovative treatments and technologies, and critical assessment for future research.
- citation revision: [4], [7] should be [4, 7]?
[17], [33] should be [17, 33]?
Thank you for these relevant remarks. The citation revision was made in the text.
