Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment by Integrated Chemical Coagulation and Electro-Fenton Processes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript “Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment by Integrated Chemical Coagulation and

Electro-Fenton Processes ” discusses the feasibility of the combined treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater by chemical coagulation and electro-Fenton method. Under the best conditions, the removal rate of fecal coliforms is the highest, and the removal rate of TKN is the lowest, 69.23%. The results show that the combination of chemical coagulation and electro-Fenton process has a significant effect on slaughterhouse wastewater treatment, and no secondary pollutants will be produced in the whole process. Electro-Fenton process is an environmentally friendly wastewater treatment technology that does not use harmful reagents. Overall, the article is well organized and well introduced. I recommend this article for publication. However, there are still some small issues that need to be addressed and improved:

1.       Line 39 on page 1 “slaughterhouses and wastewater” should be modified to “ slaughterhouses wastewater ”. Line 52 on page 2，“However, less than 1% of soluble COD and more than 67% of suspended COD in mixed effluents (poultry slaughterhouses and aviaries), These insoluble substances prevent biological treatment.” The proportion of fat in COD should be stated in the sentence. Line 189 on page 5, “Characteristics of the studied wastewater and” is not complete.

2.       These picture is not clear. (Figure 3, Figure 5)

3.       The author proposed combined chemical coagulation and Electro-Fenton Processes to study the purification of Slaughterhouse Wastewater. Although, the experimental results are far from standard, however, this processing technique has shown excellent convenience and speed. It is hoped that the author can give a summary and suggestions for further improving the effluent standard of this technology, and also provide a research basis for the practical application of this technology.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
Thank you for having allowed us to enrich the contents of our research paper through your valuable comments. At the same time, I also record my thanks to the concerned reviewers who commented on our research providing useful guidance to enhance the scientific content of our manuscript. We have considered the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. We believe that all of the comments have been addressed in a way that the reviewers would find satisfactory. We thank the editor and reviewers for their detailed and thoughtful critiques. The manuscript has been greatly improved because of their efforts.
 
Yours sincerely,
Leili Mohammadi
Amin Mohammadpour

 

Reviewer’s Comments	Authors’ Responses
Reviewer 1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The manuscript “Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment by Integrated Chemical Coagulation and Electro-Fenton Processes ” discusses the feasibility of the combined treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater by chemical coagulation and electro-Fenton method. Under the best conditions, the removal rate of fecal coliforms is the highest, and the removal rate of TKN is the lowest, 69.23%. The results show that the combination of chemical coagulation and electro-Fenton process has a significant effect on slaughterhouse wastewater treatment, and no secondary pollutants will be produced in the whole process. Electro-Fenton process is an environmentally friendly wastewater treatment technology that does not use harmful reagents. Overall, the article is well organized and well introduced. I recommend this article for publication. However, there are still some small issues that need to be addressed and improved:	Thank you for your insightful feedback.
Line 39 on page 1 “slaughterhouses and wastewater” should be modified to “ slaughterhouses wastewater ”. Line 52 on page 2，“However, less than 1% of soluble COD and more than 67% of suspended COD in mixed effluents (poultry slaughterhouses and aviaries), These insoluble substances prevent biological treatment.” The proportion of fat in COD should be stated in the sentence. Line 189 on page 5, “Characteristics of the studied wastewater and” is not complete.	Response: These comments were applied in the text.
These picture is not clear. (Figure 3, Figure 5)	Response: These figures was changed
The author proposed combined chemical coagulation and Electro-Fenton Processes to study the purification of Slaughterhouse Wastewater. Although, the experimental results are far from standard, however, this processing technique has shown excellent convenience and speed. It is hoped that the author can give a summary and suggestions for further improving the effluent standard of this technology, and also provide a research basis for the practical application of this technology.	Response: New content was added to the text in the conclusion and suggestions section

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the authors proposed a chemical treatment method of slaughterhouse wastewater. High-efficiency removal of pollutants and fecal coliforms was obtained, but amounts of chemicals were needed. Nevertheless, it is a good choice for the treatment of such a wastewater, but the cost of sewage treatment needs to be considered.

Here, I suggest a major revision.

English is very poor. Please ask a professional to revise it.

The chemicals and units need to be super/subscripts, for example, H₂O₂, m³

The specific comments are as follows:

 

1.      Introduction

Please indicate the novelty of the study.

Lines 46-55, insoluble organics will inhibit rather than prevent biological processes.

Line110 the authors should mention detailed work here.

 

2. Materials and Methods

The size, operation regulation and operation method of the whole sewage treatment system need to be introduced clearly

Analytical methods of BOD, COD, TSS and FC need to add references. Information of COD test reagents or chemicals are needed.

Instruments information needs to be clarified.

 

3. Results and Discussion

Check the tenses of the text, especially the results

Add error bars to Figures 4-6.

Line 189 3.1. Characteristics of the studied wastewater and ???????

Line 203 chemical oxygen demand (COD), the full name, including BOD, TKN and TSS etc., should be mentioned in the first time.

Line 211, Figure should be Fig., and poly aluminum chloride should be PAC, and please rewrite this figure name.

Line 350 I suggest merging the contents of Section 3.7 into 3.6 and deleting Fig. 7

Line 213 Figure should be Fig..

Lines 213-227 please rewrite this paragraph.

Line 230, 3.5 × 10⁶, unit is lack?

Line 351  Figure 11? It should be Fig. 7, I guess.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
Thank you for having allowed us to enrich the contents of our research paper through your valuable comments. At the same time, I also record my thanks to the concerned reviewers who commented on our research providing useful guidance to enhance the scientific content of our manuscript. We have considered the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. We believe that all of the comments have been addressed in a way that the reviewers would find satisfactory. We thank the editor and reviewers for their detailed and thoughtful critiques. The manuscript has been greatly improved because of their efforts.
 
Yours sincerely,
Leili Mohammadi
Amin Mohammadpour

 

Reviewer’s Comments	Authors’ Responses
Reviewer 2: Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors In this manuscript, the authors proposed a chemical treatment method of slaughterhouse wastewater. High-efficiency removal of pollutants and fecal coliforms was obtained, but amounts of chemicals were needed. Nevertheless, it is a good choice for the treatment of such a wastewater, but the cost of sewage treatment needs to be considered. Here, I suggest a major revision. English is very poor. Please ask a professional to revise it. The chemicals and units need to be super/subscripts, for example, H2O2, m3 The specific comments are as follows:	Thank you for your insightful feedback. These comments were applied in the text. The whole text was double checked and revised by our senior author who is serving as EIC and AE in several credible journals.
Introduction Please indicate the novelty of the study.	Response: The novelty of the study mentioned in lines 113 to 119
Lines 46-55, insoluble organics will inhibit rather than prevent biological processes	Response: This sentence was changed.
Line110 the authors should mention detailed work here.	Response: New content was added to the text.
Materials and Methods The size, operation regulation and operation method of the whole sewage treatment system need to be introduced clearly . Analytical methods of BOD, COD, TSS and FC need to add references. Information of COD test reagents or chemicals are needed. Instruments information needs to be clarified.	Response: New content was added to the text.
Check the tenses of the text, especially the results	Response: The whole text was double checked and revised by our senior author who is serving as EIC and AE in several credible journals.
Add error bars to Figures 4-6.	Response: Error bars added the figures.
Line 189 3.1. Characteristics of the studied wastewater and ???????	Response: This statement was corrected.
Line 203 chemical oxygen demand (COD), the full name, including BOD, TKN and TSS etc., should be mentioned in the first time.	Response: This comment was applied in text.
Line 211, Figure should be Fig., and poly aluminum chloride should be PAC, and please rewrite this figure name.	Response: This comment was applied in text.
Line 350 I suggest merging the contents of Section 3.7 into 3.6 and deleting Fig. 7	Response: Section 3.7 was merged into 3.6.
Line 213 Figure should be Fig..	Response: In text, we used figured.
Lines 213-227 please rewrite this paragraph.	Response: This paragraph was corrected
Line 230, 3.5 × 106, unit is lack?	Response: This number is the number of fecal forms.
Line 351  Figure 11? It should be Fig. 7, I guess.	Response: Figure 7 deleted.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is dealing with the specific issue of slaughterhouse wastewater treatment using Electron-Fenton Processes, is shows the concern of the authors for the environment. However, the following major corrections must be highly considered for the improvement of the quality of the present manuscript.

1.      The subscripts and superscripts must be taken care throughout the manuscript. For example, using 9.2×10⁶ is written as 9.2×106, is completely misleading the understanding of the concept. Another example is, “This conversion factor at pH of 7 and 10.5 272 is 2.3× 〖10 〗^(-2) min and 7.4× 〖10 〗^(-2), respectively [43, 44]”.

2.      Usage of many and’s in a sentence may considerably be avoided. It makes the reader hard to follow up the meaning of the sentence. For example, “The samples were immediately transferred to the laboratory and evaluated and tested after examining the initial parameters of TP, TKN, FC, BOD, and COD.” in the section 2.1.

3.      Use the correct form of SI units throughout the manuscript. For example, In SI unit mentioned in the Table 1, Voltage and Litre are wrote as “V” and “L” as capital letters. But, in the manuscript the authors used the small case letters.

4.      While using equations, the units must be provided along with the equation and in the description of individual elements of the equation.

5.      Incomplete sentence/headings must be avoided. For example, section 3.1.

6.      Section 2.8 is confusing. Explain in detail.

7.      In figure 2, use “and” appropriately in the legend and make the sentence as clear as possible. Make sure this throughout the manuscript.

8.      Make sure the uniformity of the units throughout the manuscript. Few places, the authors using mg / L with two side space, mg/ L with one side space, and mg/L without space. This must be avoided throughout the manuscript. For example, “When incrementing the coagulant concentration to 75 mg/ L, the removal efficiency increased by 61.95, 33.17, 70.93, 37.5 and 49.38%, for FC, TKN, TSS, BOD, COD, respectively. Nevertheless, by elevating the concentration to 100 mg / L, the removal efficiencies decreased to 31.79, 68.72, and 48.54% for TKN, TSS, and COD, respectively. Since the best efficiency was achieved at the PAC's 75 mg / L concentration, this was considered the optimal concentration for further tests.”, “3.5 × 106, 141 (mg/L), 308 (mg/L), 1600 (mg/L), and (2688mg/L)”, and “pH = 3, H2O2 = 2000 mg/ L, and Voltage= 20 V”.

9.      Grammatical errors and sentence formations must be seriously considered and corrected.

10.  The unclear sentences throughout the manuscripts must be rewritten. For example, “Organic contaminants possibly cause this with resistant compounds that cannot be further decomposed by the oxidants produced in the electro-Fenton process [36]”.

11.  Appropriate brackets must be used, if author needs to include different forms of same matter. For example, “Moreover, the higher electrical production of Fe2+ferrous ions than Fe3+ferric ions (Eq.2) causes increasing the efficiency of Fenton cycle reactions by raising the voltage”. However, they must be given this at the initial mentioning of the matter.

12.  In the section 3.7, the authors mentioning the Figure 11. But there is no figure 11 found in the manuscript.

13.  The authors must provide the abbreviations for each term used in the manuscript such as, TKN, TP, FC. BOD and COD must be abbreviated at the starting itself. However, TP is not used anywhere apart from one place.

14. Figure number must be re-ordered. Some places the authors use "Figure" and some places it is "Fig.". There is no Figure 1???

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
Thank you for having allowed us to enrich the contents of our research paper through your valuable comments. At the same time, I also record my thanks to the concerned reviewers who commented on our research providing useful guidance to enhance the scientific content of our manuscript. We have considered the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. We believe that all of the comments have been addressed in a way that the reviewers would find satisfactory. We thank the editor and reviewers for their detailed and thoughtful critiques. The manuscript has been greatly improved because of their efforts.
 
Yours sincerely,
Leili Mohammadi
Amin Mohammadpour

 

Reviewer’s Comments	Authors’ Responses
Reviewer 3: Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
The manuscript is dealing with the specific issue of slaughterhouse wastewater treatment using Electron-Fenton Processes, is shows the concern of the authors for the environment. However, the following major corrections must be highly considered for the improvement of the quality of the present manuscript	Thank you for your insightful feedback.
The subscripts and superscripts must be taken care throughout the manuscript. For example, using 9.2×106 is written as 9.2×106, is completely misleading the understanding of the concept. Another example is, “This conversion factor at pH of 7 and 10.5 272 is 2.3× 〖10 〗^(-2) min and 7.4× 〖10 〗^(-2), respectively [43, 44]”.	Response: New content was added to the text .
Usage of many and’s in a sentence may considerably be avoided. It makes the reader hard to follow up the meaning of the sentence. For example, “The samples were immediately transferred to the laboratory and evaluated and tested after examining the initial parameters of TP, TKN, FC, BOD, and COD.” in the section 2.1.	Response: The whole text was double checked and revised by our senior author who is serving as EIC and AE in several credible journals.
Use the correct form of SI units throughout the manuscript. For example, In SI unit mentioned in the Table 1, Voltage and Litre are wrote as “V” and “L” as capital letters. But, in the manuscript the authors used the small case letters.	Response: New content was added to the text .
While using equations, the units must be provided along with the equation and in the description of individual elements of the equation.	Response: New content was added to the text .
Incomplete sentence/headings must be avoided. For example, section 3.1.	Response: New content was added to the text .
Section 2.8 is confusing. Explain in detail.	Response: New content was added to the text .
In figure 2, use “and” appropriately in the legend and make the sentence as clear as possible. Make sure this throughout the manuscript.	Response: This statement was corrected.
Make sure the uniformity of the units throughout the manuscript. Few places, the authors using mg / L with two side space, mg/ L with one side space, and mg/L without space. This must be avoided throughout the manuscript. For example, “When incrementing the coagulant concentration to 75 mg/ L, the removal efficiency increased by 61.95, 33.17, 70.93, 37.5 and 49.38%, for FC, TKN, TSS, BOD, COD, respectively. Nevertheless, by elevating the concentration to 100 mg / L, the removal efficiencies decreased to 31.79, 68.72, and 48.54% for TKN, TSS, and COD, respectively. Since the best efficiency was achieved at the PAC's 75 mg / L concentration, this was considered the optimal concentration for further tests.”, “3.5 × 106, 141 (mg/L), 308 (mg/L), 1600 (mg/L), and (2688mg/L)”, and “pH = 3, H2O2 = 2000 mg/ L, and Voltage= 20 V”.	Response: This comment was applied in text.
Grammatical errors and sentence formations must be seriously considered and corrected.	Response: The whole text was double checked and revised by our senior author who is serving as EIC and AE in several credible journals.
The unclear sentences throughout the manuscripts must be rewritten. For example, “Organic contaminants possibly cause this with resistant compounds that cannot be further decomposed by the oxidants produced in the electro-Fenton process [36]”.	Response: the whole text was double checked and revised by our senior author who is serving as EIC and AE in several credible journals.
Appropriate brackets must be used, if author needs to include different forms of same matter. For example, “Moreover, the higher electrical production of Fe2+ferrous ions than Fe3+ferric ions (Eq.2) causes increasing the efficiency of Fenton cycle reactions by raising the voltage”. However, they must be given this at the initial mentioning of the matter.	Response: This comment was applied in text.
In the section 3.7, the authors mentioning the Figure 11. But there is no figure 11 found in the manuscript.	Response: Figure 11 was deleted.
The authors must provide the abbreviations for each term used in the manuscript such as, TKN, TP, FC. BOD and COD must be abbreviated at the starting itself. However, TP is not used anywhere apart from one place.	Response: This comment was applied in text.
Figure number must be re-ordered. Some places the authors use "Figure" and some places it is "Fig.". There is no Figure 1???	Response: This comment was applied in text.

Reviewer 4 Report

Title: “Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment by Integrated Chemical Coagulation and Electro-Fenton Processes”.

 After reviewing the present manuscript, reviewer found that the authors made interesting work and required analysis for the Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment by Integrated Chemical Coagulation and Electro-Fenton Processes. The reviewer found that this manuscript is fit with Sustainability MDPI and has following general comments and specific comments with regards to the improvement of the manuscript prior to the publication. 

The manuscript is written in good English despite some minor errors. The content of the manuscript is well organized, and length and depth of the work is fair and sufficient for an article. This manuscript can be recommended for a publication after attending to specific comments and suggestions below. 

General observations – Manuscript may not have been proof-read sufficiently before the submission, and author comments were found in several places. Please remove them before submitting the revised version. Some formatting issues were observed.

Use indent when you start a new paragraph. Be consistent with the space between units and numbers. Use of stops in appropriate places and correct way of referencing must be carefully looked.

The comments below are organized in order as they appear in the manuscript.

 

1.           Graphical abstract – Include a graphical abstract according to journal requirement.

2.           It is suggested for the authors to include the highlights, with the most significant findings of the research project.

3.           Line 32-Each keyword should start with an upper case.

4.           Line 36-Indent

5.           Line 51-Replace “allowable” with “allowed”

6.           Line 56-Indent

7.           Line 56- Use lower case for “Fecal”

8.           Line 60-Indent

9.           Line 71-Indent

10.        Line 71- Can the authors justify the statement by comparing with different wastewater treatment techniques and why this approach is chosen in this study “One of the new and widely used approaches to removing contaminants is chemical coagulation and advanced oxidation processes”

11.        Line 83-Indent

12.        Line 88-Indent

13.        Line 117-Indent

14.        Line 127-Indent

15.        Line 127- Use lower case for “Jar”

16.        Line 136-Indent

17.        Line 137-Use subscript for “H202”

18.        Line 148-Indent

19.        Line 160-Indent

20.        Line 165-Indent

21.        Line 175-Indent

22.        Line 185-Indent

23.        Line 189-Incomplete side heading “3.1”

24.        Line 190-Indent

25.        Line 207-Indent

26.        Line 229-Indent

27.        Line 237-Indent

28.        Line 256-Indent

29.        Line 257-Rephrase the sentence “The sample characteristics the entered at the time”

30.        Use space between numbers and unit “BOD (1750mg/L), and 258 COD (2937mg/L)”

31.        Line 264-Indent

32.        Line 271,276 and 277- Use subscript for “H202”

33.        Line 279 and 280- Use subscript for “Fe(OH)3, H202, O2 and H2O”

34.        Line 288-Indent

35.        Line 295-Indent

36.        Line 317-Indent

37.        Line 317-Use subscript for “H202”

38.        Line 319- Use space between number and unit “COD (2767mg/L)”

39.        Line 320-Use subscript for “H202”

40.        Line 325-Indent

41.        Line 326,328,329,337 and 341- Use subscript for “H202”

42.        Line 338-Use subscript for “HO2*”

43.        Line 345-Indent

44.        Line 345to 363- Use subscript for “H202”

45.        Line 351-Indent

46.        Line 351- Correct the figure number “Figure 11”

47.        Line 357-Indent

48.        Line 364- Rearrange the heading number of “5. Conclusions” to “4”

49.        Line 365-Indent

50.        High resolution images are suggested with visible fonts.

51.        It is suggested for the authors to use either “Fig” or “figure” throughout the manuscript.

52.        There are publications on similar techniques: Can the authors add a comparison table of present study with other works on chemical coagulation and electro-Fenton processes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
Thank you for having allowed us to enrich the contents of our research paper through your valuable comments. At the same time, I also record my thanks to the concerned reviewers who commented on our research providing useful guidance to enhance the scientific content of our manuscript. We have considered the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. We believe that all of the comments have been addressed in a way that the reviewers would find satisfactory. We thank the editor and reviewers for their detailed and thoughtful critiques. The manuscript has been greatly improved because of their efforts.
 
Yours sincerely,
Leili Mohammadi
Amin Mohammadpour

 

Reviewer’s Comments	Authors’ Responses
Reviewer 4: Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
Title: “Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment by Integrated Chemical Coagulation and Electro-Fenton Processes”.  After reviewing the present manuscript, reviewer found that the authors made interesting work and required analysis for the Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment by Integrated Chemical Coagulation and Electro-Fenton Processes. The reviewer found that this manuscript is fit with Sustainability MDPI and has following general comments and specific comments with regards to the improvement of the manuscript prior to the publication.  The manuscript is written in good English despite some minor errors. The content of the manuscript is well organized, and length and depth of the work is fair and sufficient for an article. This manuscript can be recommended for a publication after attending to specific comments and suggestions below.  General observations – Manuscript may not have been proof-read sufficiently before the submission, and author comments were found in several places. Please remove them before submitting the revised version. Some formatting issues were observed. Use indent when you start a new paragraph. Be consistent with the space between units and numbers. Use of stops in appropriate places and correct way of referencing must be carefully looked. The comments below are organized in order as they appear in the manuscript.	Thank you for your insightful feedback. The whole text was double checked and revised by our senior author who is serving as EIC and AE in several credible journals. Your comment applied in text.
Graphical abstract – Include a graphical abstract according to journal requirement.	Response: The graphical abstract was added the manuscript.
It is suggested for the authors to include the highlights, with the most significant findings of the research project.	Response: The highlights was added the manuscript.
Line 32-Each keyword should start with an upper case.	Response: This comment was applied in text
Line 36-Indent	Response: This comment was applied in text
Line 56- Use lower case for “Fecal”	Response: This comment was applied in text
Line 51-Replace “allowable” with “allowed”	Response: This comment was applied in text
Line 71- Can the authors justify the statement by comparing with different wastewater treatment techniques and why this approach is chosen in this study “One of the new and widely used approaches to removing contaminants is chemical coagulation and advanced oxidation processes”	Response: Different methods for treating slaughterhouse wastewater include activated sludge, stabilization ponds, anaerobic reactors, electrocoagulation, and soluble air flotation [11]. Aerobic treatment processes have limited applications due to the high energy requirement for aeration and the production of much sludge. However, the anaerobic treatment of abattoir wastewater is often performed slowly and mainly interrupted due to the accumulation of suspended solids and floating fats in the reactor, thus reducing methanogenic activity and biomass leaching. Although biological processes are occasionally operational and cost-effective, they are less favored due to the requirement for large areas, extended times of hydraulic retention, as well as excellent output biomass concentrations. In the investigations, it was found that hybrid processes such as the combined use of chemical coagulation and electro-Fenton for slaughterhouse wastewater treatment have not been reported so far. Thus, this work was conducted to assess the feasibility of treating wastewater of livestock slaughterhouses by integrating chemical coagulation processes and the electro-Fenton process. The results of this research can be used by competent au-thorities to increase the efficiency of slaughterhouse wastewater treatment and protect the environment.
Line 127- Use lower case for “Jar”	Response: This comment was applied in text.
Line 137-Use subscript for “H202”	Response: This comment was applied in text.
.        Line 189-Incomplete side heading “3.1”	Response: The section 3.1 was changed.
Line 257-Rephrase the sentence “The sample characteristics the entered at the time”	Response: This sentence was corrected
Use space between numbers and unit “BOD (1750mg/L), and 258 COD (2937mg/L)”	Response: This comment was applied in text.
Line 317-Use subscript for “H202”	Response: This comment was applied in text.
Line 319- Use space between number and unit “COD (2767mg/L)”	Response: This comment was applied in text.
Line 320-Use subscript for “H202”	Response: This comment was applied in text.
Line 351- Correct the figure number “Figure 11”	Response: Figure 11 was deleted.
Line 364- Rearrange the heading number of “5. Conclusions” to “4”	Response: This comment was applied in text.
High resolution images are suggested with visible fonts.	Response: The resolution images were used.
It is suggested for the authors to use either “Fig” or “figure” throughout the manuscript.	Response: This comment was applied in text.
There are publications on similar techniques: Can the authors add a comparison table of present study with other works on chemical coagulation and electro-Fenton processes.	Response: This comment was applied in text
Indent in all text	Response: This comment was applied in text.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Error bars can not be found in figures 4-6.

If the chemical test method is not a common standard method, please list the reagent manufacturer information.

Instruments information also needs to be mentioned.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2
Thank you for your comments and suggestions that allowed us to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript. We agree with all your comments, and we corrected the manuscript accordingly.
Best regards,
Amin Mohammadpour

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript may be considered for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3
Thank you for your comments and suggestions that allowed us to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript. We agree with all your comments, and we corrected the manuscript accordingly.
Best regards,
Amin Mohammadpour

Reviewer 4 Report

After reviewing the present revised manuscript, reviewer found that the authors made all the suggested changes for the Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment by Integrated Chemical Coagulation and Electro-Fenton Processes. The reviewer found that this manuscript is fit with Sustainability MDPI.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4
Thank you for your comments and suggestions that allowed us to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript. We agree with all your comments, and we corrected the manuscript accordingly.
Best regards,
Amin Mohammadpour