Coupling AnMBR, Primary Settling and Anaerobic Digestion to Improve Carbon Fate When Treating Sulfate-Rich Wastewater
, Juan B. Giménez 2, Ángel Robles 2, Nuria Martí 2,*, Joaquín Serralta 1 and Aurora Seco 2
Kenji Furukawa
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Paper would benefit from minor editing of English language. Some comments made in attached file.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of your submitted paper is interesting and some valuable results were obtained. The level of your submitted paper is not high owing to the redundant way of writing. I have judged major revision is required before accepting your paper.
The followings are your weak and unclear points. Please revise your paper by taking into account these points.
1. The “Introduction” part and section 3.3 are too long. You must write these parts briefly.
2. S-SO4 → SO4-S, N-NH4 → NH4-N
3. What is the material of hollow fiber membrane?
4. You must show the recycling sludge pump and blower pump in Fig. 1.
5. Fig. 1 TM → MT
6. You must show Table 1 in Results and Discussion part.
7. You must consider the number of significant digit in your paper.
8. Section 2.3 Relaxation → idle, air sparging → gas sparging
9. It is better to show the filtration performance in Figure. Transmembrane fluxes shown in the section 2.3 were the results. You must write this information in Results and Discussion part.
10. Section 2.4 suspended solids（TSS） → total suspended solids（TSS）,total sold(MLTS) → mixed liquor suspended solid(MLSS), volatile solid(MLVS) → mixed liquor volatile suspended solid(MLVSS)
11. You must show Fig. 5 first in section 3 and must explain the way of determination of steady-state. Fig.2 to 5 show the values obtained in steady-state condition.
12. Fig.2 You must explain the abbreviation for D-CH4 and BG-CH4
13. You must pay attention to the capitals in Figure titles for Fig. 3 and 4. （Biodegradable → biodegradable, Anaerobic → anaerobic etc.）
14. Please pay attention to the decimal point. (0,3% → 0.3%)
15. 3.2.1 evolution is not good. Time evolution of MLTS, MLVS → changes in MLSS, MLVSS
16. 3.3.3 sludge production of 101 g SV kg CODremoved-1 → sludge production of 101 g-VSS kg-CODremoved-1
17. 3.2.3 Figures 5a and 5b → Figures 6a and 6b
18. Please use “Period” instead of period in the text.
19. Did you consider the inhibiting substances in measuring COD and BOD? Sulfide is the inhibiting substance for measuring COD and BOD.
20. There are many uncommon words in your paper. Please use common academic words.( thank to, contemplated, harness, valorize, traduce etc.)
21. 3.3 wastewater anaerobic treatment → main line, classic wastewater treatment → conventional wastewater treatment
22. Discussion on the operational cost for permeate pump is required.
23. Main stream wastewater treatment(WWT) using aerobic MBR is now becoming popular in Europe, USA and Japan. Efficient advanced WWT is feasible using aerobic MBR. Discussion is required by comparing the AnMBR and aerobic MBR.
It is difficult to read your paper owing to your redundant way of writing. One sentence is too long. Please write your paper in clear and concise manner. Native check is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The idea is ok, but revision should be made before it can be accepted.
1. All figures should be redrawn, as they are too small and not clear.
2. Figure 6, the unit of Y-axis should be added
3. The title of Table 6 is too sample. It is COD removal???
4. Conclusions section is too long, authors should focused on their key findings in this paper
5. In Figure 5, the data is not stable in each period, how authors used it to calculated the parameters in latter tables and Figures???
6. Figure 4 is too sample. It can be described in texts.
7. The format of Tables should follow the journal’s requirement.
The language should be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
You have improved your paper by taking into account the reviewer’s comments. I have judged your paper reached to the acceptance level of Water.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper can be accepted in this version.
