Application of Biofilm Water Conservation and Emission Reduction Technology in the Pond Culture of Largemouth Bass and Japanese Eel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. I appreciate the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Application of biofilm water conservation and emission reduction technology in pond culture of largemouth bass and Japanese eel" for potential publication in the Sustainability. While the manuscript is certainly interesting, I do have some significant concerns that need to be addressed.
2. The research title is notable for its precise and informative approach, effectively conveying the study's focus and providing readers with a clear understanding of its objectives.
3. For a standardized presentation, arrange the keywords alphabetically to organize the information consistently and logically.
4. The references cited in this manuscript are appropriate and provide strong support for the statements made. However, it is recommended to include additional recent references to ensure the information remains current. Notably, the manuscript has garnered citations in 53.85% (14/26) of the most recent publications within the past five years. These publications comprise 2 articles in 2019, 1 article in 2020, 3 articles in 2021, 1 article in 2022, and 7 articles in 2023.
5. It is important to follow the journal's specific referencing standards in this manuscript to ensure accurate and compatible references.
6. The author should enhance the manuscript by providing more comprehensive details about the patented biofilm water purification grid and the process of selecting bacterial strains. It would greatly benefit the reader if the author explains the rationale behind their choice of specific bacterial strains.
7. Additionally, offering insights into the preparation method of the bacterial fluids would significantly improve the clarity and comprehensibility of the experimental procedure.
8. I suggest conducting a comparison of the pond area, breeding density, and tail weight data between the treatment group and the control group, using a specified p-value to confirm any differences in table 1.
9. The author's choice to overlook the measurement of crucial factors such as hardness, alkalinity, salinity, and turbidity is puzzling, especially when considering the significant impact these variables have on water quality in aquaculture.
10. To enhance the data statistics and analysis section, I recommend including more comprehensive details about the statistical methods employed to assess each water quality parameter and evaluate the effectiveness of increasing production parameters. Additionally, it would be beneficial to confirm the normality of the data before conducting the analysis.
11. To enhance the quality of Figure 1-4, it is advisable to improve the resolution and increase the size of the characters for better visibility.
12. Please ensure that error bars are incorporated for each data point in the figure. Adding error bars will enhance the clarity, reliability, and impact of the figure, enabling readers to make informed interpretations and potentially replicate the findings.
13. The manuscript should include a more thorough analysis of the data, specifically comparing survival rates and dissolved oxygen levels between largemouth bass and Japanese eel. This additional discussion will enhance understanding of the technology's effectiveness in both species and provide valuable insights for future research and aquaculture practices.
14. I would suggest the author to describe the study's limitations in the discussion section.
15. The conclusion section of this manuscript is both vague and lengthy. It is important to clearly state the primary revelation from the significant content that was acquired, along with suggestions for application. Furthermore, including a recommendation for further research at the end of the conclusion section would effectively encourage future investigations in this area.
16. Please thoroughly examine the manuscript and verify the accuracy of any instances where superscript is utilized. For instance, please review the notation for ions such as NH₄⁺, NO₂⁻, NO₃⁻, and HPO₄²⁻, as well as any significant differences denoted as 0.405±0.129a and bacterial concentration represented as 1.60×10⁹ cfu/mL.
17. I suggest the author correct the table name error to "Table 7. Statistical analysis of largemouth bass culture results."
18. I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to review this submission. While acknowledging the importance and relevance of the topic, I believe that further clarification and motivation are necessary. I genuinely hope that the recommendations provided will be beneficial to the authors in their endeavor to publish this work

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to you for your time and valuable feedback on our manuscript titled "Application of biofilm water conservation and emission reduction technology in pond culture of largemouth bass and Japanese eel." We appreciate the thorough review and the constructive comments provided. Your input is highly valuable, and we are committed to addressing each of your concerns to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Comments 1:It is important to follow the journal's specific referencing standards in this manuscript to ensure accurate and compatible references.

Response 1: We will thoroughly review and adjust our citation style to meet the requirements of the journal. This includes formatting, citation order, and any other specific criteria outlined by the journal.

Comments 2:I suggest conducting a comparison of the pond area, breeding density, and tail weight data between the treatment group and the control group, using a specified p-value to confirm any differences in table 1.

Response 2: The ponds were chosen to be as similar in condition as possible, and are mentioned in line 85 of the manuscript

Comments 3: The author's choice to overlook the measurement of crucial factors such as hardness, alkalinity, salinity, and turbidity is puzzling, especially when considering the significant impact these variables have on water quality in aquaculture.

Response 3: We thank the reviewers for pointing out the concern that key factors such as hardness, alkalinity, salinity and turbidity measurements were omitted from our study. We are aware that these parameters can have a significant impact on water quality in aquaculture. This omission occurred because our study initially focused on evaluating the specific impacts of biofilm water conservation and reduction technologies on target water quality parameters, including ammonia levels, total nitrogen, and phosphorus concentrations.

Comments 4: I would suggest the author to describe the study's limitations in the discussion section.

Response 4:The current understanding of the tolerance mechanism of biofilm to toxic substances remains at the macro level, and it is necessary to reasonably utilize genomics, metabolomics and other research means to analyze the tolerance mechanism and removal mechanism of biofilm in different environments from a microscopic point of view. 

Comments 5:The conclusion section of this manuscript is both vague and lengthy. It is important to clearly state the primary revelation from the significant content that was acquired, along with suggestions for application. Furthermore, including a recommendation for further research at the end of the conclusion section would effectively encourage future investigations in this area.

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable comments, have added some suggestions for further research at the end of the article.

Comments 6: Please thoroughly examine the manuscript and verify the accuracy of any instances where superscript is utilized. For instance, please review the notation for ions such as NH₄⁺, NO₂⁻, NO₃⁻, and HPO₄²⁻, as well as any significant differences denoted as 0.405±0.129a and bacterial concentration represented as 1.60×10⁹ cfu/mL.

Response 6: Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. We will verify and correct any discrepancies in the reported data.

Comments 7: I suggest the author correct the table name error to "Table 7. Statistical analysis of largemouth bass culture results."

Response 7: Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. I have changed the error name in table 7 to “Statistical table of Japanese eel culture results”

We are dedicated to addressing these concerns and ensuring that the manuscript is improved to meet the journal's standards. Your feedback is greatly appreciated, and we will carefully review and make the necessary modifications. 

Once again, I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to review this submission. We are committed to addressing your concerns and enhancing the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Sincerely,

Wang Zeyu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article described the application of biofilm water conservation and emission reduction technology in the pond culture of largemouth bass and Japanese eel. It is quite comprehensive and should bring value to readers. Some specific comments are provided below:

1.     Keywords must be representative in the abstract and the title, please correct it.

2.     What is the main question addressed by this research? Why biofilm water conservation and emission reduction technology should be considered by this research.

3.     How about the parameter condition for water quality itself in pond culture of largemouth bass and Japanese eel, has it significantly influenced the experiment?

4.     How is the mechanism of biofilm technology for water quality and water conservation as well as for emission reduction applications compared with other published material?

5.     Why the average TN, TAN, TP, nitrite, and LP levels in the treatment group were highly significantly lower than those in the control group, should the authors consider the mechanism?

6.     What is the limitation of using this material, biofilm water purification, for its application in achieving water saving and emission reduction during pond culture of largemouth bass and Japanese eel?

 

7.      The reference list should be thoroughly double-checked, some of the references are either missing key information (i.e., page numbers) or not uniformly (some using capital letters) cited with standard format.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

I would like to express my appreciation to you for the constructive feedback and valuable comments on our manuscript titled "Application of biofilm water conservation and emission reduction technology in pond culture of largemouth bass and Japanese eel" We have carefully reviewed the comments and suggestions, and I am pleased to provide responses to each point raised:

Comments 1:Keywords must be representative in the abstract and the title, please correct it.

Response 1: I acknowledge the importance of keywords in the abstract and title.  I've made changes to the keyword information in lines 22-23 of the manuscript.

Comments 2:What is the main question addressed by this research? Why biofilm water conservation and emission reduction technology should be considered by this research.

Response 2:The main problem solved in this study is the water pollution caused by residual bait and metabolites during the pond culture of largemouth bass and Japanese eel, etc. Biofilm technology can effectively degrade these pollutants and organic matter through microbial digestion, denitrification, phosphorus polymerization, and metabolic reactions, etc., and achieve the goal of purifying water and reducing the need for water exchange.

Comments 3:How about the parameter condition for water quality itself in pond culture of largemouth bass and Japanese eel, has it significantly influenced the experiment?

Response 3:To ensure the validity of the results, the initial conditions of the ponds were chosen to be as similar as possible, and the background water quality parameters are indicated in Tables 2 and 4.

Comments 4:How is the mechanism of biofilm technology for water quality and water conservation as well as for emission reduction applications compared with other published material?

Response 4:I will provide a more in-depth discussion in the manuscript regarding the mechanism of biofilm technology for water quality improvement and its comparison with other relevant studies.

Comments 5:Why the average TN, TAN, TP, nitrite, and LP levels in the treatment group were highly significantly lower than those in the control group, should the authors consider the mechanism?

Response 5: The microorganisms on the biofilm can absorb and degrade nitrogen and phosphorus compounds in the aquaculture water through  nitrification, denitrification, phosphorus accumulation and flocculation.Therefore, the mean levels of TN, TAN, TP, nitrite and LP in the treatment group were significantly lower than those in the control group.

Comments 6:What is the limitation of using this material, biofilm water purification, for its application in achieving water saving and emission reduction during pond culture of largemouth bass and Japanese eel?

Response 6:The current understanding of the tolerance mechanism of biofilm to toxic substances remains at the macro level, and it is necessary to reasonably utilize genomics, metabolomics and other research means to analyze the tolerance mechanism and removal mechanism of biofilm in different environments from a microscopic point of view.

Comments 7The reference list should be thoroughly double-checked, some of the references are either missing key information (i.e., page numbers) or not uniformly (some using capital letters) cited with standard format.

Response7: I conduct a thorough review of the reference list to ensure that all key information (including page numbers) is included and that it is uniformly formatted according to journal standards.

Once again, we thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and we will work to address them and improve the manuscript accordingly. We will provide a revised version of the manuscript with the necessary changes.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely

Wang Zeyu

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigated the use of biofilms and microorganisms in aquaculture for water purification and compared the effects of water quality purification on fish growth efficiency. It is believed to be a paper with interesting and practical implications for the industry.

The comparison of water quality purification effects is deemed appropriate, and the evaluation of how it affected aquaculture efficiency was well-done

However, it is thought that more academic explanations are needed. For example, if you further examine the correlations between water quality parameters, it could enhance the quality of the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your thoughtful review and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled "Application of biofilm water conservation and emission reduction technology in pond culture of largemouth bass and Japanese eel". We appreciate your positive comments on our research and recognition of its potential impact on the aquaculture industry.

We are particularly pleased to hear that the comparison of water purification efficacy and the assessment of its impact on aquaculture efficiency were found to be appropriate and excellent. Your feedback is much appreciated.

Regarding the suggestion that more academic explanation is needed, we fully agree with the importance of further research into the correlations between water quality parameters to improve the quality of the paper. This will provide a more comprehensive academic basis for our findings.

We are committed to improving the manuscript based on your suggestions to ensure its academic rigor and contribution to the field. We will provide a revised version of the manuscript incorporating these improvements.

Thank you again for your valuable time and feedback. We look forward to the opportunity to resubmit the improved manuscript for your consideration.

With best regards,

Wang Zeyu

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript present the application of complex microbes in biofilm for remediation of wastewater. It is well written and below are my comments 

1) Please check this, 1.60×109 cfu/mL? 

2) Why there is a increase in pH ? can the authors put a dicussion towards this ?

3) It seems there is an increase with DO levels? Did you the authors use aeration?

4) Is it the total phosphate or phosphorous been analysed? there seems to be inconsistency. Please check

5) The wastewater employed in this study, is off very low strength, and how  the emission is reduced here?

6) The authors are requested to mention a environmental implciation section, please compare other technologies and the present observation. Discuss the emissions redcution here.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript was easy to read.

Author Response

Dear reviewer：
We would like to thank you for your thorough review and valuable comments on our manuscript entitled "Application of biofilm water conservation and emission reduc-tion technology in pond culture of largemouth bass and Japanese eel". Your comments are invaluable and we will endeavor to address each and every issue you raise:

Comments 1:Please check this, 1.60×109 cfu/mL? 
Response1: Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. We will verify and correct any discrepancies in the reported data, especially the value "1.60 × 10⁹ cfu/mL".

Comments 2:Why there is a increase in pH ? can the authors put a dicussion towards this ?
Response 2: We explain the reason for this change in 336-339 of the manuscript.

Comments 3: It seems there is an increase with DO levels? Did you the authors use aeration?
Response 3: We used an aeration device in our study and have added it to lines 93-94 of the manuscript.

Comments 4: Is it the total phosphate or phosphorous been analysed? there seems to be inconsistency. Please check
Response 4: Total phosphorus generally encompasses orthophosphates, condensed phosphates, pyrophosphates, metaphosphates, phosphites, and organic group-bound phosphates. A decrease in phosphate concentration will simultaneously cause a decrease in total phosphorus.

Comments 5: The wastewater employed in this study, is off very low strength, and how  the emission is reduced here?
Response 5: Feeding of bait and metabolism of culture objects in the process of culture will cause pollution deterioration, by comparing the treated group with the control group we can find a significant reduction of pollutants in the treated culture water body.

Comments 6:The authors are requested to mention a environmental implciation section, please compare other technologies and the present observation. Discuss the emissions redcution here.

Response 6: We appreciate the suggestion to include an environmental impacts section. In the revised version, we will discuss the impacts of our findings in the context of other techniques. This section will provide a more comprehensive assessment of our work.

We are committed to addressing these comments and ensuring that the manuscript is improved based on the reviewers' suggestions. We will provide a revised version incorporating these changes.

Thank you again for your valuable time and comments.

Sincerely yours,

Wang Zeyu

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to express my gratitude for your prompt response and for taking the time to address some of the concerns raised in my previous comments. I truly appreciate your commitment to enhancing the quality of the manuscript. However, there are still a few points that have not been fully addressed, and I would like to reiterate the following suggestions:

 

Firstly, it would greatly benefit the manuscript to provide more comprehensive details regarding the patented biofilm water purification grid and the process of selecting bacterial strains. By explaining the rationale behind the choice of specific bacterial strains, readers will gain a deeper understanding of their significance in enhancing the study.

 

To bolster the data statistics and analysis section, I recommend including more comprehensive details about the statistical methods employed to assess each water quality parameter and evaluate the effectiveness of increasing production parameters. Additionally, it would be beneficial to confirm the normality of the data before conducting the analysis, ensuring the validity and reliability of the findings.

 

Please ensure that error bars are incorporated for each data point in the figures. The inclusion of error bars will enhance the clarity, reliability, and impact of the figures, enabling readers to make informed interpretations and potentially replicate the findings.

 

Moreover, it is essential to include a more thorough analysis of the data, particularly when comparing survival rates and dissolved oxygen levels between largemouth bass and Japanese eel. This additional discussion will not only enhance the understanding of the technology's effectiveness in both species but also provide valuable insights for future research and aquaculture practices.

 

In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the changes that have been made thus far and express my appreciation for your efforts. I strongly encourage you to address the remaining suggestions in order to further improve the manuscript. By addressing these concerns, the clarity and quality of the study will be enhanced, thereby increasing its potential for publication. Thank you for considering my feedback, and I eagerly anticipate reviewing the revised manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. I appreciate your acknowledgment of the changes made thus far and your encouragement for further improvement. Your insights are invaluable, and I am fully committed to addressing the remaining suggestions to enhance the manuscript's clarity and quality.

I have added error bars to the figure, using shaded representations. In addition I have added to the discussion about dissolved oxygen and survival rates.

I sincerely appreciate your continued guidance, and I am dedicated to delivering a revised manuscript that addresses all the remaining concerns. Your feedback is instrumental in ensuring the overall improvement of the study.

Thank you once again for your time and valuable insights. I look forward to submitting the revised manuscript for your review.

Best regards,

Wang Zeyu

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have significantly added some answered points in this revised manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for acknowledging the efforts made by the authors in addressing several points in the revised manuscript. We are pleased to hear that the additions made were significant and have contributed positively to the manuscript's content.

We highly value your feedback and are committed to continuously improving the manuscript to meet the required standards. If there are any specific areas or unresolved points that still need attention, please don't hesitate to highlight them. Your guidance is instrumental in ensuring the manuscript's quality and relevance.

We appreciate your time and thorough review of the revised manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable in shaping the manuscript's development.

Best regards,

Wang Zeyu

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the author for providing the response and necessary changes. But still there are couple of questions which i am yet to be clarified.
1) How the emission is reduced here? The authors have used emisisons at at total of 13 places in the manuscript, but was it measured by any means directly or indirectly? If not, please remove the term from title- it is misleading.
2) Table 2 and Figure 1 is bit confusing, the figures shows there is removal of TN and TP, but in the table it is quite opposite?  Please explain or remove the table or move it o supplementary or just keep the control group alone.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your continued engagement with the manuscript and for highlighting these remaining points for clarification. The authors appreciate your dedication to ensuring the accuracy and clarity of the content.

1. With regard to emission reductions, this is achieved by reducing water exchange and reducing the discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus pollutants from farm tail waters.

2. Table 2 shows the values at the beginning of the culture and the average values during the culture, while Figure 1 shows a trend during the culture.

We are dedicated to addressing these concerns promptly and accurately in the revised manuscript. Your feedback is crucial in ensuring the manuscript's accuracy and coherence.

Thank you for your continued support and guidance throughout this process.

Best regards,

Wang Zeyu

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your prompt response and for addressing some of the concerns raised in my previous comments. I appreciate your efforts in enhancing the manuscript. However, there is one point that has not been fully addressed, and I would like to reiterate the following suggestion. To bolster the data statistics and analysis section, I recommend including more comprehensive details about the statistical methods used to assess each water quality parameter and evaluate the effectiveness of increasing production parameters. Specifically, please provide information on how the normality of the data was checked before conducting the analysis. Since six culture ponds were used in this experiment, there is a high chance that the data may not be normally distributed. In such cases, it may be more appropriate to use non-parametric statistics.

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your continued engagement with the manuscript and for highlighting the need for a more detailed explanation of the statistical methods used in analyzing the data. We appreciate your dedication to ensuring the robustness of our statistical approach.

We have made changes to the Data Statistics and Analysis section.

Thank you for your valuable input.

Sincerely,

Wang Zeyu.