Application of Landfill Gas-Water Joint Regulation Technology in Tianjin Landfill
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper presented the study aeration and water injection for landfill gas remediation. Simulations were carried out for different conditions. Although the topic is important for environmental protection, the current manuscript needs improvements or additions. For this reviewer, major revisions and further clarifications are needed before a final decision can be made on this manuscript. The authors should properly address the following comments to further improve this manuscript:
1. The title should be improved.
2. The template must be respected.
3. The summary should be improved so that it is more clearly understood, describes the reasoning and motivation of this application and more clearly identifies the scientific contribution of the authors.
4. Reference section: Authors must carefully revise the format of references according to journal instructions.
5. Make references in the text according to journal instructions.
6. I think there are too many abbreviations, if possible try to reduce them.
7. On page 4 it is necessary to correct the following:
- The landfill covers an area of about 240 mu (to correct the measurement unit)
- The average depth of the landfill is 11 m – it repeats (you wrote above)
8. m3 (to correct the measurement unit m³) throughout the article
9. Figure 2.- be centered and rendered more clearly.
10. Pag.7 – table 2 – correct table 4
11. Pag.7 -table 3- correct table 5
12. O2 to correct O2 (throughout the article)
13. Formula numbering is missing (throughout the article)
14. Pag. 9 – table 5- correct table 6
15. The conclusions should be improved, the own contributions and new elements should be highlighted
English very difficult to understand
Author Response
Responses to reviewers
We appreciate these kind comments and suggestions on our manuscript from reviewers, which have definitely helped us to improve the quality of this work. According to your suggestions, we have made modifications in our revised manuscript, and tried our level best to improve the manuscript. We anticipate that this manuscript will be in suitable form for publications.
- The title should be improved.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The title has been changed into “Application Optimization of landfill gas-water joint regulation technology in Tianjin landfill”
- The template must be respected.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The content in the article has been modified according to the template provided by the "Processes"
- The summary should be improved so that it is more clearly understood, describes the reasoning and motivation of this application and more clearly identifies the scientific contribution of the authors.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. We have reorganized and revised the summary of the manuscript based on your suggestions. Followed please find our revised summary:
In-situ aeration technology accelerates the stabilization of MSW landfills through enhancing the degradation of organics, but still suffers the high energy-consuming and operating costs due to the low oxygen utilization efficiency. This research aims to improve oxygen utilization efficiency and therefore improve the designing and engineering of In-situ aeration process towards MSW landfills. Herein three different reactors of M1, M2 and M3 were constructed, with different age wastes in piles were treated under aerobic, semi-aerobic, and anaerobic conditions, during which the leachate was recirculated, the dynamic respiratory index were monitored and gas-water control parameters were optimized at different landfill depths. Furthermore, this study monitored the efficiency of the removal of ammonia and nitrogen from landfill waste, including the use of different environments, leachate irrigation technology, and optimizing the different types of bacteria used. Such techniques are crucial for effective waste management and the protection of the environment. The results show that the simultaneous control of gas and water can significantly improve the rate at which organic matter is removed from the landfill. The COD, BOD, NH3-N, and TN were all significantly reduced. Compared with the traditional means of aeration, this method can significantly reduce the quantity by more than 60%. Overall, our study has demonstrated the potential benefits of incorporating aerobic pre-treatment and leachate into waste management practices, which can help to improve the efficiency and sustainability of waste treatment processes.
- Reference section: Authors must carefully revise the format of references according to journal instructions.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The format of references in the text has been modified according to the template provided by the "Processes"
- Make references in the text according to journal instructions.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The format of references in the text has been modified according to journal instructions.6. I think there are too many abbreviations, if possible try to reduce them.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The number of abbreviations have been reduced.
- On page 4 it is necessary to correct the following:
- The landfill covers an area of about 240 mu (to correct the measurement unit)
- The average depth of the landfill is 11 m – it repeats (you wrote above)
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The unit “mu” has been corrected to international standard unit “m2” and repeat content has been deleted.
- m3 (to correct the measurement unit m³) throughout the article
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The incorrect units have been modified.
- Figure 2.- be centered and rendered more clearly.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The figure 2 has been modified.
- Pag.7 – table 2 – correct table 4
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The serial numbers in text are corrected.
- Pag.7 -table 3- correct table 5
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The serial numbers in text are corrected.
- O2 to correct O2(throughout the article)
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The incorrect symbols have been corrected.
- Formula numbering is missing (throughout the article)
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The formula numbering has been added.
- Pag. 9 – table 5- correct table 6
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The serial numbers in text are corrected.
- The conclusions should be improved, the own contributions and new elements should be highlighted
Answers: Many thanks for this suggestive comments. Indeed MSW landfills are extremely complex matrix comparing with ordinary aqueous solution or soil system. For instance, each MSW landfills buried so many different kind of solid wastes that all of them have different physical and chemical properties like density, water content, organics, inorganics, and these value may vary significantly by different landfilling ages, depths, etc. As far as we know, there is no accurate modelling method to optimization rules currently to predict or to calculate the landfill remediation process, in which too many physical, chemical and biological process takes place including the transportation of leachate, gas and organics, the chemical and biological reaction between different components in the pile from various solid wastes. Therefore in this paper we conducted the pile research in real MSW landfills, during which the parameters of gas and leachate system is optimized by observing the degradation performance, including the change of COD, BOD, NH3-N, and TN.
Based on above-mentioned facts, we adjust our expression regarding this issue in the conclusion section. Currently our conclusion is “our study has demonstrated the potential benefits of incorporating aerobic pre-treatment and leachate into waste management practices, which can help to im-prove the efficiency and sustainability of waste treatment processes.” We did not claim that “our results can optimize the aeration and water injection parameters”. Thanks for your suggestions and we believe the current way is more solid.
Reviewer 2 Report
Title: Optimization of landfill gas-water joint regulation technology
Manuscript ID: processes-2483271
Authors: N/A
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to read your article. I found the topic is interesting and fundamental. Generally speaking, the methods and results need more clear explanation and detail discussion with fair point of view. Your statements/discussions are often not based on your results. Many of references are missing. I suggest that this article will be revised extensively before its re-submission for another review process if applicable. As a conclusion, I recommend its major revision at this state.
I hope my comments are helpful.
Good luck,
A reviewer
Major concerns:
“Article title”
->Please consider rephrasing “Optimization” since there was no optimization performed in this study. You measured some physical and chemical values in order to see their trends but they were not optimized.
“Abstract”
->In the abstract, please consider briefly explaining the method(s) you used and the summary of key findings with key numbers.
“Keywords”
->Please consider providing keywords that are not used in the article title.
“Introduction”
-Please consider citing more references and focusing on the contents directly relevant to the article topic.
-In the introduction, please consider stating the unique contributions of your study and specific hypotheses if any.
-In this section, please consider minimizing the repetitions. For example, “…aerobic stabilization…to digest organic components in landfill wastes…The aerobic decomposition process involves the use of oxygen to break down the organic matter present in the waste…”
-“The aerobic restoration technology…can be divided into three types…”->Please consider citing relevant references.
-Page 2 (and elsewhere): “Error! Reference source not found”->Please make the references available.
“2. Materials and methods”
“2.1 Description of the case study”
-Figure 1: Please add a scale in the figure.
-“The sand-filing method…”->Please consider briefly explaining the method and citing relevant reference.
-Table 1: “Average Density (kg/m3)” seems very small, even smaller than the density of water. In this section, please consider explaining the reason of such small densities.
“2.2 Bio-reactor description and monitoring plan”
“2.2.1. Establishment of experiment system”
-“…stratified aeration technology…”->Please consider citing a relevant reference.
-Figure 2: Please consider (a) adding a scale in each schematic, and providing explanation of each schematic in the figure title. Why do you have 3 similar schematics in this figure, not one? If you show 3, there must be a reason to show all of them.
“2.3 Monitoring indicators and frequency”
-Table 3: Please consider explaining the details and procedure of the method as well as the data analysis and evaluation procedure, and citing relevant references. Please consider providing enough details of the methods that can be used by a researcher to conduct his/her future work.
“3. Results and Discussion”
-The aim of this research was to optimize gas-water control parameters, but there was no optimization approach based on the results you obtained. Please consider addressing this point, through for example design of experiment modeling.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.11.060
https://doi.org/10.3390/met9080899
-Please number all the equations and cite relevant references.
“3.1. Preliminary landfill characterization”
-“The word “mixture” refers to a mixture of components with less than 10 mm particle size.”->(a) Please provide the detail procedure of sampling “mixture” and its composition, and (b) please consider providing the size distribution of other components stated in Table 2 since it can affect your results.
“3.1.1 Physicochemical properties”
-Table 2 (page 7): Please renumber the table since you have another Table 2 (page 5).
-Table 3 (page 7): Please renumber the table since you have another Table 3 (page 6).
“3.2. Development of aeration and reinjection”
-“Static Respiration Index…”->Please consider citing a reference.
-Figure 3: Please consider adding error bars in data points. In the figure title, please consider stating the sampling point/height. Please discuss the results.
-“Adani et al. found…”->Please consider citing a reference.
“3.3. Effects on waste and leachate”
-Figures 4-9: Please consider adding error bars in data points.
“3.3.3. The sedimentation rate changes feature”
-“The settling rate…”->In the method section, please consider mentioning how you measured “settling rate”, and citing relevant reference(s).
-Figure 9: Please add the unit of settlement plotted in y-axis. mm?
“3.4. Discussion”
-Please consider citing your results in this section and linking them with your discussion. The current status of this section is isolated from the other parts of this article.
-“…DRIdm…reduce…by 60%...”->(a) Please explain how you determined this value and which results (Fig.3?) and literature value you used. (b) Please explain the “traditional aerobic rehabilitation technology” and relevant literature where you find a reference/literature value.
“4. Conclusions”
-“This study designed the aeration and water injection parameters…”->Please consider revising this phrase since your study measured those parameters but did not design the parameters.
-In this section, please consider providing the high quality summary of your study and citing key results. The current conclusions are literature review-like abstract without key results.
Minor concerns:
-Please consider polishing English more. You may use my comments above for this purpose.
-Please consider adding line numbers. They will help for reviewers and editors to make comments more easily.
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Responses to reviewers
We appreciate these kind comments and suggestions on our manuscript from reviewers, which have definitely helped us to improve the quality of this work. According to your suggestions, we have made modifications in our revised manuscript, and tried our level best to improve the manuscript. We anticipate that this manuscript will be in suitable form for publications.
“Article title”
->Please consider rephrasing “Optimization” since there was no optimization performed in this study. You measured some physical and chemical values in order to see their trends but they were not optimized.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The title has been modified.
“Abstract”
->In the abstract, please consider briefly explaining the method(s) you used and the summary of key findings with key numbers.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The abstract has been modified.
“Keywords”
->Please consider providing keywords that are not used in the article title.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The keywords have been modified.
“Introduction”
-Please consider citing more references and focusing on the contents directly relevant to the article topic.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. More literature on research achievements have been added. This chapter mainly aims to present the progress of aerobic rapid stabilization in landfill studies, as well as attempts to reduce energy consumption and improve system efficiency. This is also the main purpose of this research, so a considerable amount of space is devoted to summarizing the results.
-In the introduction, please consider stating the unique contributions of your study and specific hypotheses if any.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The introduction was modified as follows:
Considering the differences in degradation rates of waste from different regions and depths, this paper used comprehensive measures to regulate the aeration mode and aeration volume to improve the anaerobic remediation efficiency of the landfill, and introduced the DRI parameter to forecast the changes in the oxygen demand of waste at different landfill depths and landfill ages.
-In this section, please consider minimizing the repetitions. For example, “…aerobic stabilization…to digest organic components in landfill wastes…The aerobic decomposition process involves the use of oxygen to break down the organic matter present in the waste…”
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The repetitions have been minized.
-“The aerobic restoration technology…can be divided into three types…”->Please consider citing relevant references.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The references have been added.
-Page 2 (and elsewhere): “Error! Reference source not found”->Please make the references available.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The references have been corrected.
“2. Materials and methods”
“2.1 Description of the case study”
-Figure 1: Please add a scale in the figure.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The scale has been added in figure 1.
-“The sand-filing method…”->Please consider briefly explaining the method and citing relevant reference.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. This is a convenient method for testing density, often used to measure the density of soil. The basic principle involves using clean and uniform sand with a particle size range of 0.30 to 0.60mm or 0.25 to 0.50mm, freely falling from a certain height into a test hole, and measuring the volume of the test hole based on the principle of constant unit weight (i.e., replacing the aggregate in the test hole with standard sand), combined with the moisture content of the aggregate to calculate the actual dry density of the sample. And the references have been added.
However，This is a relatively common testing method, so it has not been discussed further in this article.
-Table 1: “Average Density (kg/m3)” seems very small, even smaller than the density of water. In this section, please consider explaining the reason of such small densities.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. There are many substances such as plastic, cellulose, and lignin in landfills, so the density is very low in the uncompacted state. The density of conventional aged landfill waste is around 900kg/m3 [1], while the density of compacted landfill waste is above 950 kg/m3. In this experiment, the waste was excavated and manually compacted twice, so there may be some differences in density compared to the actual situation.
[1] Owusu-Nimo, F., Oduro-Kwarteng, S., Essandoh, H., Wayo, F., & Shamudeen, M.. Characteristics and management of landfill solid waste in Kumasi, Ghana. Scientific African, 2019, 3, e00052.
“2.2 Bio-reactor description and monitoring plan”
“2.2.1. Establishment of experiment system”
-“…stratified aeration technology…”->Please consider citing a relevant reference.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The relevant reference has been presented in the introduction.
-Figure 2: Please consider (a) adding a scale in each schematic, and providing explanation of each schematic in the figure title. Why do you have 3 similar schematics in this figure, not one? If you show 3, there must be a reason to show all of them.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The relevant scale has been added. The experiment aims to achieve the goal of efficient and rapid degradation of waste by establishing three pilot-scale facilities and performing different aeration and re-circulation processes on waste at different depths.
“2.3 Monitoring indicators and frequency”
-Table 3: Please consider explaining the details and procedure of the method as well as the data analysis and evaluation procedure, and citing relevant references. Please consider providing enough details of the methods that can be used by a researcher to conduct his/her future work.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. These are some common testing methods that have been covered in many literature sources. The relevant testing methods have been listed in the table. The less common testing methods were cited in the table, but this part is not the focus of the article. All in all, there is no need for detailed descriptions.
“3. Results and Discussion”
-The aim of this research was to optimize gas-water control parameters, but there was no optimization approach based on the results you obtained. Please consider addressing this point, through for example design of experiment modeling.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.11.060
https://doi.org/10.3390/met9080899
Answers: Many thanks for this suggestive comments. your example regarding the design of experiment modeling is very suggestive and inspiring , therefore we add figure 2 to explain the experiment process.
Indeed we carefully checked the example of modelling from your suggestive publications. However, MSW landfills are extremely complex matrix comparing with ordinary aqueous solution or soil system. For instance, each MSW landfills buried so many different kind of solid wastes that all of them have different physical and chemical properties like density, water content, organics, inorganics, and these value may vary significantly by different landfilling ages, depths, etc. As far as we know, there is no accurate modelling method currently to predict or to calculate the landfill remediation process, in which too many physical, chemical and biological process takes place including the transportation of leachate, gas and organics, the chemical and biological reaction between different components in the pile from various solid wastes. Therefore in this paper we conducted the pile research in real MSW landfills, during which the parameters of gas and leachate system is optimized by observing the degradation performance, including the change of COD, BOD, NH3-N, and TN.
-Please number all the equations and cite relevant references.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The formula numbering has been added.
“3.1. Preliminary landfill characterization”
-“The word “mixture” refers to a mixture of components with less than 10 mm particle size.”->(a) Please provide the detail procedure of sampling “mixture” and its composition, and (b) please consider providing the size distribution of other components stated in Table 2 since it can affect your results.
Answer: Many thanks for this comment. The sampling method used in the experiment involves removing large debris (such as stones larger than 50cm) from the sample, then crushing the remaining waste to small particles ranging from 100mm to 200mm using a crusher. The samples obtained are then dried and manually screened or sieved to classify the types of waste. This is because the composition of waste is complex, and directly filling it into the reactor without crushing it can have an uncontrollable impact on subsequent experimental analysis. Therefore, crushing is used to make the waste distribution more uniform. Additionally, since the waste has been crushed, there is unnecessary to conduct a secondary analysis of the particle size distribution of the crushed waste.
The relevant sampling and testing content has been added to the text.
“3.1.1 Physicochemical properties”
-Table 2 (page 7): Please renumber the table since you have another Table 2 (page 5).
-Table 3 (page 7): Please renumber the table since you have another Table 3 (page 6).
Answers: Many thanks for this suggestive comments. The wrong number of tables have been renumbered.
“3.2. Development of aeration and reinjection”
-“Static Respiration Index…”->Please consider citing a reference.
Answers: Many thanks for this suggestive comments. The reference has been cited.
-Figure 3: Please consider adding error bars in data points. In the figure title, please consider stating the sampling point/height. Please discuss the results.
-“Adani et al. found…”->Please consider citing a reference.
Answers: Many thanks for this suggestive comments. The reference has been cited.
“3.3. Effects on waste and leachate”
-Figures 4-9: Please consider adding error bars in data points.
Answers: Many thanks for this suggestive comments. All data points have been added error bars.
“3.3.3. The sedimentation rate changes feature”
-“The settling rate…”->In the method section, please consider mentioning how you measured “settling rate”, and citing relevant reference(s).
Answers: Many thanks for this suggestive comments. The method used to test sedimentation is leveling instrument measurement method (also as line drawing method). This is because the test reactor is made of a plastic bucket with some transparency, which allows us to see the sedimentation inside the reactor. By measuring the sedimentation at several different locations of the reactor and taking the average value to obtain the sedimentation rate.
However，This is a relatively common testing method, so it has not been discussed further in this article.
-Figures 4-9: Please consider adding error bars in data points.
Answers: Many thanks for this suggestive comments. All data points have been added error bars.
-Figure 9: Please add the unit of settlement plotted in y-axis. mm?
Answers: Many thanks for this suggestive comments. The unit of settlement has been added.
“3.4. Discussion”
-Please consider citing your results in this section and linking them with your discussion. The current status of this section is isolated from the other parts of this article.
Answers: Many thanks for this suggestive comments. The results in this section have been linked with discussion.
-“…DRIdm…reduce…by 60%...”->(a) Please explain how you determined this value and which results (Fig.3?) and literature value you used. (b) Please explain the “traditional aerobic rehabilitation technology” and relevant literature where you find a reference/literature value.
Answers: Many thanks for this suggestive comments. The literature value and relevant literature reference have been cited.
Answers: Many thanks for this suggestive comments.
“4. Conclusions”
-“This study designed the aeration and water injection parameters…”->Please consider revising this phrase since your study measured those parameters but did not design the parameters.
Answers: Many thanks for this suggestive comments. The expression of the conclusion has been revised and The inappropriate description has been deleted.
-In this section, please consider providing the high quality summary of your study and citing key results. The current conclusions are literature review-like abstract without key results.
Answers: Many thanks for this suggestive comments. Indeed MSW landfills are extremely complex matrix comparing with ordinary aqueous solution or soil system. For instance, each MSW landfills buried so many different kind of solid wastes that all of them have different physical and chemical properties like density, water content, organics, inorganics, and these value may vary significantly by different landfilling ages, depths, etc. As far as we know, there is no accurate modelling method to optimization rules currently to predict or to calculate the landfill remediation process, in which too many physical, chemical and biological process takes place including the transportation of leachate, gas and organics, the chemical and biological reaction between different components in the pile from various solid wastes. Therefore in this paper we conducted the pile research in real MSW landfills, during which the parameters of gas and leachate system is optimized by observing the degradation performance, including the change of COD, BOD, NH3-N, and TN.
Based on above-mentioned facts, we adjust our expression regarding this issue in the conclusion section. Currently our conclusion is “our study has demonstrated the potential benefits of incorporating aerobic pre-treatment and leachate into waste management practices, which can help to im-prove the efficiency and sustainability of waste treatment processes.” We did not claim that “our results can optimize the aeration and water injection parameters”. Thanks for your suggestions and we believe the current way is more solid.
Reviewer 3 Report
I’ve just finished a review of the paper processes-2483271, titled „ Optimization of landfill gas-water joint regulation technology “, and written by the authors Jun Liu, Tianqi Pan, Huihui Zhao, Yan Guo, Guanyi Chen, Li'an Hou.
This paper aims to improve oxygen utilization efficiency by observing the dynamic respiratory index and optimizing gas-water control parameters. It was designed the aeration and water injection parameters for landfill gas remediation. Constructing three different reactors (M1, M2, and M3), different age waste was treated with aerobic, semi-aerobic, and anaerobic conditions, simulating the organic removal effect at different depths with different gas and water control conditions. It was concluded that aerobic pre-treatment can help to enhance the degradation of various organic components in the waste, including fat, carbohydrate, protein, and lignin. This can increase the methane production capacity of the landfill, which is desirable due to its significance as a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. Moreover, the increased porosity of the waste components during aerobic pre-treatment can lead to a positive feedback loop, where the airflow is increased which accelerates the decomposition rate of the organic matter in the waste heap. Specifically, this could be effective for fresh waste, which contains a high content of easily degradable organic matter and it has a greater population of degradation bacteria. Recycling leachate back through irrigation is another useful strategy for managing waste. This process can help to increase the population of bacteria in aged waste and continually promote the activity of aerobic microorganisms in fresh waste, this ultimately improves the overall metabolic efficiency of the waste. Overall, this experiment has demonstrated the potential benefits of incorporating aerobic pretreatment and leachate into waste management practices; these can help to improve the efficiency and sustainability of waste treatment processes. The results also show that the simultaneous control of gas and water can significantly improve the rate at which organic matter is removed from the landfill. The COD, BOD, NH3-N, and TN were all significantly reduced. Compared with the traditional means of aeration, this method can significantly reduce the quantity by more than 60%.
In general, the paper is interesting, and novel, and it is easy for reading. The English is correct. In general, papers dealing with environmental protection including waste management and waste stabilization, are very actual and important nowadays. And this paper offer solution for concrete practical application of the technology in the field, which is very important to be noted. Thus, I suggest the editor accept the paper.
However, in the paper are just given results of applied technology, i.e. in the paper are described only given technological aspects, but is missing a scientific approach for problem-solving, so I suggest the authors to change the type of the paper instead of a research article to a technological report.
Also, I suggest the authors to change old literature with some recent literature data, as well as to compare their results with the results of other authors, if such results can be found in the literature.
Best regards
Author Response
However, in the paper are just given results of applied technology, i.e. in the paper are described only given technological aspects, but is missing a scientific approach for problem-solving, so I suggest the authors to change the type of the paper instead of a research article to a technological report.
Also, I suggest the authors to change old literature with some recent literature data, as well as to compare their results with the results of other authors, if such results can be found in the literature.
Answers: Many thanks for this suggestive comments. Indeed MSW landfills are extremely complex matrix comparing with ordinary aqueous solution or soil system. For instance, each MSW landfills buried so many different kind of solid wastes that all of them have different physical and chemical properties like density, water content, organics, inorganics, and these value may vary significantly by different landfilling ages, depths, etc. As far as we know, there is no accurate modelling method to optimization rules currently to predict or to calculate the landfill remediation process, in which too many physical, chemical and biological process takes place including the transportation of leachate, gas and organics, the chemical and biological reaction between different components in the pile from various solid wastes. Therefore in this paper we conducted the pile research in real MSW landfills, during which the parameters of gas and leachate system is optimized by observing the degradation performance, including the change of COD, BOD, NH3-N, and TN.
Based on above-mentioned facts, we adjust our expression regarding this issue in the conclusion section. Currently our conclusion is “our study has demonstrated the potential benefits of incorporating aerobic pre-treatment and leachate into waste management practices, which can help to im-prove the efficiency and sustainability of waste treatment processes.” We did not claim that “our results can optimize the aeration and water injection parameters”. Thanks for your suggestions and we believe the current way is more solid.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I agree with the improvements
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
As all the comments were addressed, I would suggest the journal accept this article for its publication.
Best regards,
A reviewer
Moderate editing of English language required.
