Next Article in Journal
A Novel Method to Assess the Impact of a Government’s Water Strategy on Research: A Case Study of Azraq Basin, Jordan
Next Article in Special Issue
The Life Cycle Environmental Performance of On-Site or Decentralised Wastewater Treatment Systems for Domestic Homes
Previous Article in Journal
Activated Ailanthus altissima Sawdust as Adsorbent for Removal of Acid Yellow 29 from Wastewater: Kinetics Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
Treatment of Wastewaters by Microalgae and the Potential Applications of the Produced Biomass—A Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 13
Issue 15
10.3390/w13152137
Review Report
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Mesocosm- and Field-Scale Evaluation of Lignocellulose- Amended Soil Treatment Areas for Removal of Nitrogen from Wastewater

Water 2021, 13(15), 2137; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13152137
by Sara Wigginton 1, Jose Amador 1,*, Brian Baumgaertel 2, George Loomis 3 and George Heufelder 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2021, 13(15), 2137; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13152137
Submission received: 3 June 2021 / Revised: 27 July 2021 / Accepted: 28 July 2021 / Published: 3 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue On-Site Wastewater Treatment)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of manuscript: Mesocosm- and Field-Scale Evaluation of Lignocellulose- 2 Amended Soil Treatment Areas for Removal of Nitrogen from Wastewater.

This manuscript is overall well written and presents interesting findings from research conducted to investigate a novel small-scale domestic wastewater treatment system.   The research was conducted in a sound manner and the results and discussion are comprehensively presented.  It is recommended that the manuscript be accepted for publication following minor modifications.  These are detailed along with annotated comments, in a pdf copy of the manuscript, forwarded.

Specific comments are as follows:

  1. Can the authors advise/suggest how long the sawdust applied would remain effective, as it could be expected to degrade over time.
  2. A description of the top-soil type/composition should be provided e.g. loam, clayey, sandy soils and mineralogy, where possible.    
  3. As there would be much void volume in the sawdust and bark (and these could be compressed to various volumes, both the sand and the sawdust/bark uses should be better defined, including comparative weights where this data is available. Is the Quercus spp a hardwood or softwood? Is the genus widespread globally?. Would the authors expect sawdust/bark from different sources behave differently? Clarify whether the sand is silica based; does it have TiO2 content for instance? Were samples of the sand(s) also analyzed by XRF to determine the surface mineralogy to contextualize the study?
  4. Line 353: Reference to different technologies should be better defined/detailed. What are these generically?
  5. Line 369: is the apparent difference between TN levels 73and 69 mg/L statistically significant? What is the co-efficient of variation of the TN method used?
  6. Line 378: What is ‘average high winter minimum’?
  7. Several sentences in the ‘Conclusion’ section are too long and need to be split into two.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please add more clarification for Figure 4.

Add more supporting references for paragraphs 216-230.

 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop