Evaluation of the Water Quality and Farming Growth Benefits of an Intelligence Aquaponics System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I cannot recommend the work for publication in its current form. The introduction provides an overview of previous successes in building of “aquaponics” ecocosystems that combine food chains of “aquaculture” (fish) and “hydroponics” (the soilless culture of plants). At the same time, the purpose and scientific novelty of the presented work is not clear. Upon reading, one gets the feeling that everything has already been investigated earlier, the shortcomings have been eliminated, and the authors simply use the successful solutions of other researchers. The only difference is that the research facility has been moved to Taiwan. This is not enough in the opinion of the reviewer.
From the conclusions, it is also not clear how this work stands out from the others, and what fundamentally new achievements have been obtained. The results of measurements taken in good faith are simply listed. I admit that the work is indeed important for ensuring food security in Taiwan, but the scientific novelty is questionable.
According to the experimental part, the measurement of oxygen concentration was carried out using a YSI-Pro Plus multi-parameter water quality analyzer. This device uses an electrochemical sensor (https://www.ysi.com/proplus). It is known that this type of sensor is not suitable for measurements in environments with sulfur-containing compounds (aerotanks) due to poisoning. Optical analyzers should be used in such environments [DOI 10.1002/bies.201500002]. The operation of the optical oxygen sensor in aquaculture conditions is also inevitably accompanied by a change in response time due to surface biofouling. There is a large number of studies, recent work by Osborne et al [DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.8b01541] and Alexandrovskaya et al [DOI: 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.100916] for example, which show that the fouling rate is highly dependent on the sensor material. A multiple increase in response time can be observed after several weeks of operation in a biologically saturated environment. Moreover, this phenomenon can be used to create biosensors [DOI: 10.1016/j.mencom.2020.07.015]. It is not clear how the authors of the presented work controlled the correctness of the sensor readings.
The careless spelling of chemical formulas is also surprising. Instead of subscripts, numbers of reduced size are used, and the charge of ions is put at random. For example, lines 97, 99, etc.
Author Response
The author's response to the review report is shown in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Hard points:
This study used an aquaponics system to implement the mutualism of fish, flowers, vegetables and water. The aquaponics can be the solution in many small territory rainfall abundant like Taiwan, in this case.
Weak points:
It a good study and could be of interest for the Journal's public but the low number of aquaponics systems out the question of replicability of this study.
Also I consider that introduction of the statistics, analyzing the water quality, fish and plants growth would be more suggestive and clear for those interested by this topic *(the figures 1-8 can be attached as Supplementary material).
Author Response
The author's response to the review report is shown in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The added goal descriptions and conclusion greatly improved the perception of the work. Minor bugs have also been fixed.
The reviewer remains with his own opinion regarding the use of amperometric sensors in environments with a high biomass content. Practice shows that the assurance of the manufacturers of such devices is often at odds with practice. Nevertheless, we will consider the data presented by the authors as reliable. A description of the method for sensor readings control should be added to the Water quality monitoring section. Authors are strongly encouraged to switch to optical sensors in the future.
Author Response
Point 1: The added goal descriptions and conclusion greatly improved the perception of the work. Minor bugs have also been fixed.
Response 1: Thanks for the correction and suggestion.
Point 2: The reviewer remains with his own opinion regarding the use of amperometric sensors in environments with a high biomass content. Practice shows that the assurance of the manufacturers of such devices is often at odds with practice. Nevertheless, we will consider the data presented by the authors as reliable. A description of the method for sensor readings control should be added to the Water quality monitoring section. Authors are strongly encouraged to switch to optical sensors in the future.
Response 2: The description of the method for sensor readings control be added to the Water quality monitoring section already, at P. 5, Line 203-206 (in blue), and our laboratory water quality monitoring experiments will switch to optical sensors in Future. Thanks again for the reviewer's suggestion.
This article has been proofread by Sharon Rees, who is a native English speaker, prior to submission.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
.... "Figures 1 to 8 demonstrated our data and leads us to conclude that Aquaponics System does help to improve the ....." this is not a fulfilling answer to the Journals public!
Please be so kind and justify these affirmations more scientifically with a clear statistic analysis of the ascertained data.
.
Author Response
Point 1: .... "Figures 1 to 8 demonstrated our data and leads us to conclude that Aquaponics System does help to improve the ....." this is not a fulfilling answer to the Journals public!
Please be so kind and justify these affirmations more scientifically with a clear statistic analysis of the ascertained data.
Response 1: Thanks to the Reviewer’s suggestion, the text has been improved to supplement the description of Figures 1 to 8, more scientifically with a clear statistic analysis of the ascertained data, at pp.5-10 (in blue).
This article has been proofread by Sharon Rees, who is a native English speaker, prior to submission.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
