The Common Approaches of Nitrogen Removal in Bioretention System
, Husna Takaijudin, Khamaruzaman Wan Yusof, Manal Osman and Abdurrasheed Sa’id AbdurrasheedRound 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is a very good study with overall adequate presentation. Some additions are needed:
1) Authors should further emphasize on the novelty of their work. There are Review articles in the similar field, so which is the present differentiation? Authors should focus on it.
2) Some minor typos, grammar and syntax errors should be carefully revised and corrected accordingly.
3) Reference can be even more updated (more recent relative works).
4) The number of Refs is huge for this type of Review. My suggestion is to have maximum 80 Refs.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to the Author
The authors of the manuscript entitled " The common Approaches of Nitrogen Removal in Bioretention System” have prepared a good written and focused review that comprehensively studied the recent works on Nitrogen Removal in bioretention system. It is adequately concise and can guide researchers to start to understand the pathway. in addition, the prepared tables are highly helpful. In general, and from my point of view, this manuscript has the proper eligibility for publication in the prestigious journal of Membranes. By the way, the following comments are written for consideration of the authors:
- The abstract is not so clear. The abstract should be written in a format that the reader understands the general aim of the research and the activities have been done in the research. However, the abstract is ambiguous and it is not so straightforward to understand the main aim of the study.
- In the last paragraph of the introduction, authors should describe the novelty and general method of their research. It is better to more explain about the novelty of this review compared to other reviews.
- Line 127, Section 3: the characterising of stormwater should explain about the composition and analysis of the stormwater but in this section the land and area. Please modify the title.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
It is a good work, well organized, and to some extent it covers all the common approaches of N removal on bioretention systems.
This is sufficient as reviewing paper. So, I 'd recommend the acceptance.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Please check the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All my comments of the initial submission have been correctly replied and included in the revised manuscript. The quality of this work has been drastically improved after revision and therefore I recommend its publication as it is.
Author Response
Thank you very much, the authors hope the revised paper can be accepted based on positive words of respected reviewer.
Reviewer 4 Report
The reviewer appreciates the authors' efforts to improve the quality of the manuscript. However, some minor points still need to be improved. Please check the comments below.
- L20: Replace the word 'introduced' with 'reviewed'.
- L37-38: Better to merge the sentences and rewrite as 'The issue of stormwater quality has received considerable attention and is known as the primary source of ecological deterioration.'
- Figure 1: No need to stretch the figure and replace it with a higher resolution one.
- Table 1 and 2: Scientific names of the plant should be written in italics. Please check and correct this throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
The authors really appreciate the efforts of the respected reviewer to make the paper in the best form.
Point 1: L20: Replace the word 'introduced' with 'reviewed'.
Response 1: Thank you for the good comment reported by respected reviewer. The word has been changed.
Point 2: L37-38: Better to merge the sentences and rewrite as 'The issue of stormwater quality has received considerable attention and is known as the primary source of ecological.
Response 2: Thank you very much for valued comment, we merge the sentences and rewrite it as comment mentioned.
Point 3: Figure 1: No need to stretch the figure and replace it with a higher resolution one.
Response 3: Thank you so much for good comment. We add new and clear figure with more explanation. Hopefully, it becomes better.
Pont 4: Table 1 and 2: Scientific names of the plant should be written in italics. Please check and correct this throughout the manuscript.
Response 4: All tables have been corrected.
