Occurrence of Selected Emerging Contaminants in Southern Europe WWTPs: Comparison of Simulations and Real Data
, Andrea Menéndez-Manjón 1, Paula Arias-García 1, Amanda Laca 1, Adriana Laca 1,*, Amador Rancaño 2 and Mario Díaz 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This work is interesting and useful to readers. However, there is still some modifications which should be addressed before publication. Most of the figures in this word don't have enough resolution for publication. I can't see the details in some of them. Please use more clear figures. Some legends can be revised for a better reading. For example, Fig. 2 a effluent of ibuprofen. Besides, some literature can be inlcluded for example: he role of transparent exopolymer particles (TEP) in membrane fouling: A critical review; reaction heterogeneity in the bridging effect of divalent cations on polysaccharide fouling. Furthermore, the conclusion is a little wordy, please refine it.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find attached the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Occurrence of selected emerging contaminants in Southern Europe WWTPs: comparison of simulations and real data” by Daniel Sol, Andrea Menéndez-Manjón, Paula Arias-García, Amanda Laca, Adriana Laca, Amador Rancaño and Mario Díaz as authors. The manuscript has been modified according with reviewers’ suggestions and a detailed response to reviewers’ comments has also been included. All changes performed in the text have been marked up using the “Track Changes” function, as Editor’s instructions.
All authors agree to submit the work to Processes and confirm that this is an original paper, and the work has not been published, submitted or being submitted to another journal.
Sincerely yours,
Adriana Laca
Department of Chemical Engineering and Environmental Technology
University of Oviedo
C/ Julián Clavería s/n. 33006 Oviedo. Spain
Oviedo (Asturias, Spain) 19 November 2022
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
This work is interesting and useful to readers. However, there is still some modifications which should be addressed before publication.
Point 1: Most of the figures in this word don't have enough resolution for publication. I can't see the details in some of them. Please use more clear figures. Some legends can be revised for a better reading. For example, Fig. 2 a effluent of ibuprofen.
Response 1: According to the Reviewer’s suggestion, figures have been modified and, in addition, the legends have been revised.
Point 2: Besides, some literature can be included for example: the role of transparent exopolymer particles (TEP) in membrane fouling: A critical review; reaction heterogeneity in the bridging effect of divalent cations on polysaccharide fouling.
Response 2: The articles proposed by the Reviewer have been revised; however, it was not possible to include them in the manuscript since the main topic of these papers were “membrane fouling”. The topic of our work has nothing to do with membranes; it is about the occurrence of emerging contaminants in WWTPs and the use of SimpleTreat software to simulate the performance of these pollutants during the treatment process.
Point 3: Furthermore, the conclusion is a little wordy, please refine it.
Response 3: According to Reviewer’s suggestion, the conclusions has been clarified.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The comments on the manuscript are in the Word file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find attached the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Occurrence of selected emerging contaminants in Southern Europe WWTPs: comparison of simulations and real data” by Daniel Sol, Andrea Menéndez-Manjón, Paula Arias-García, Amanda Laca, Adriana Laca, Amador Rancaño and Mario Díaz as authors. The manuscript has been modified according with reviewers’ suggestions and a detailed response to reviewers’ comments has also been included. All changes performed in the text have been marked up using the “Track Changes” function, as Editor’s instructions.
All authors agree to submit the work to Processes and confirm that this is an original paper, and the work has not been published, submitted or being submitted to another journal.
Sincerely yours,
Adriana Laca
Department of Chemical Engineering and Environmental Technology
University of Oviedo
C/ Julián Clavería s/n. 33006 Oviedo. Spain
Oviedo (Asturias, Spain) 19 November 2022
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
The topic of the manuscript is up to date and it deals with emerging contaminants influents and effluents of WWTPs. The authors used well-known software for predictions for the removal of these contaminants from wastewaters in WWTPs and compared the results with actual concentrations. Here are some suggestions for the necessary changes in the manuscript:
Point 1: PE – not defined the first time it appeared in the text. Check the abbreviations in the supplementary materials. What are DBO5 and SSLM? (The standard abbreviations are BOD and MLSS).
Response 1: According to the Reviewer’s suggestion, population equivalent, which acronym is PE, has been included the first time that it appears (line 88, page 2). In addition, the abbreviations in the supplementary materials have been checked and corrected.
Point 2: Were the samples collected once a month grab or composite samples? Grab samples are not representative thus results are not reliable.
Response 2: The samples collected once a month were grab samples, as indicated in Material and Methods section (lines 126-127, page 4). One of the objectives of this work was indeed to evaluate the different concentrations that could be found in the influent and effluent water. For this reason, grab samples were taken instead of composites samples that would buffer the changes giving a daily average value. Anyway, as 9 samples were collected, the range of usual concentrations could be determined, and also average values could be calculated using these data. In addition, four WWTPs have been evaluated, which enhances the results obtained in this work.
Point 3: Some of the sentences need rephrasing in order to be clear and understandable: Line 11: “double settling”; Lines 191 -192; Lines 121-123; Lines 242-244; Lines 266-268; Lines 315-318; Lines 373-373
Response 3: The different understandable sentences have been modified to be clear, according to the Reviewer’s suggestion.
Point 4: If there is no designated place for the table with abbreviations, it would be better if it was at the beginning of the paper.
Response 4: According to the journal instructions, the abbreviations should be listed at the end of the manuscript.
Point 5: Check the list of references. The journals should be cited in the form presented below:
Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.
Response 5: According to the Reviewer’s suggestion, the list of references has been corrected.
Point 6: Can some conclusions be drawn from these results regarding the type (acid, base, etc.) of ECs and their removal efficiencies in WWTPs?
Response 6: According to the Reviewer’s suggestion, some additional information regarding this point has been included in the manuscript (please see lines 420-427, pages 6-7).
Point 7: Is it possible to find default rate constants for these ECs in the literature and compare them with obtained values? SimpleTreat and biodegradation constant should be explained (and discussed) in more detail.
Response 7: According to the Reviewer’s suggestion, some additional information regarding this point has been included in the manuscript (please see lines 358-361 and 369-379, pages 5-6).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
