Water Purification Effect of Ecological Floating Bed Combination Based on the Numerical Simulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Please revise the title as follow:

Water Purification Effects of Ecological Floating Beds Combination Based on the Numerical Simulation

Queries: Bed or Beds?? or Combination with... or only Beds Combination??

Abstract: Still, the abstract is poorly featured and become very long with many unnecessary information. I already suggested, "make it clear and concise"..It means the authors should includes; First, short rationale of the, then, write about study methods in short/brief, then present your key results and conclusive message. Also, shorten the newly added ones too. Please integrate all the parts well and give best flow...Finally, it will become-- "Clear and Concise". Please use simple and meaningful but short sentences in the abstract rather than long ones and confusing.

The reference format are not consistent, some reference with many authors name presented with complete authors names some are not.. See then second one i recommended...Please present all authors name there too.

Rest are fine.

Thanks!

I want to review the further revised version as well!

Author Response

We would like to thank you again for your insightful suggestions and comments, which have helped in improving the quality of our paper. We have revised the paper upon incorporating all your suggestions and comments.

Comment 1:

Please revise the title as follow:

Water Purification Effects of Ecological Floating Beds Combination Based on the Numerical Simulation

Queries: Bed or Beds?? or Combination with... or only Beds Combination??

Response:

We thank the reviewer for the adjusted title and for pointing out this issue. We queried the full text of beds and beds. This msnuscript should use "bed", and only use the plural form when encountering "different" "ecological floating beds". We have corrected the grammatical error in the full text.

Please see the red marks in the revised manuscript for details.

We have modified the title as follows:

Water Purification Effect of Ecological Floating Bed Combina-tion Based on the Numerical Simulation

Thanks for your valuable comments!

Comment 2:

Abstract: Still, the abstract is poorly featured and become very long with many unnecessary information. I already suggested, "make it clear and concise"..It means the authors should includes; First, short rationale of the, then, write about study methods in short/brief, then present your key results and conclusive message. Also, shorten the newly added ones too. Please integrate all the parts well and give best flow...Finally, it will become-- "Clear and Concise". Please use simple and meaningful but short sentences in the abstract rather than long ones and confusing.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have trimmed the abstract from unnecessary information and shortened the newly added sections. The specific modifications are as follows:

The Wuqing urban section of the North Canal Basin, Tianjin, is an significant gathering place for multisource pollution, showing the characteristics of a stagnant water body supplied by unconventional water sources. With the development of the economy and society, the water quality of the Wuqing urban section of the North Canal Basin, Tianjin, has been seriously polluted due to the discharge of sewage outlets and the influx of nonpoint source pollution from farmland. In this study, based on the results of special water experiments, a two-dimensional hydrodynamic water quality model was constructed. The concentrations ammonia nitrogen (NH₃-N), total phosphorus (TP), and chemical oxygen demand (COD) in the study area were simulated, and the model parameters were calibrated and verified with the measured values. Based on the model verification, the water quality improvement scheme of the ecological floating bed with different plant ratios was set up to simulate the water quality. The research results showed that the average concentrations of NH₃-N, TP, and COD decreased by 10.4%, 15.7%, an of d 26.3%, respectively, after the ecological floating bed was arranged. During model parameter calibration and validation, the RMSE ranges of NH₃-N, TP and COD were 0.09~0.22 mg/L, 0.00~0.02 mg/L and 0.37~2.42 mg/L, respectively. Other statistical indicators are also within a reasonable range, and the model accuracy and reliability are high. The simulation results of different scenarios showed that the optimal ratio of ecological floating bed plants was 700 m² of Scirpus validus Vahl and 700 m² of Canna in zone 1 of the floating bed combination, 430 m² of Scirpus validus Vahl and 170 m² of Iris in zone 2 of the floating bed combination, and 200 m² of Iris and 200 m² of Lythrum salicaria in zone 3 of the floating bed combination. This study can provide a theoretical basis for the sustainable development of water purification in the North Canal. It can also provide a model approach for the implementation of river water purification schemes exemplified by the North Canal.

Comment 3:

The reference format are not consistent, some reference with many authors name presented with complete authors names some are not.. See then second one i recommended...Please present all authors name there too.

Responce:

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have standardized and unified the references of the full text. Your recommended references provide all author names.

[1] Munazzam, J.S.; Razia, T.; Muhammad, S.; Shafaqat, A.; Samina, I.; Muhammad, A. Remediation of polluted river water by floating treatment wetlands. Water Supply 1 May 2019; 19 (3): 967–977. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2018.154

[2] Swastik, G.; Nishan, P.; Susmita, P.; Tunisha, G.; Apekshya, K.; Bandita, M.; Michael, J.A.; Shukra R.P. Assessment of technologies for water quality control of the Bagmati River in Kath-mandu valley, Nepal. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, Volume 18, 2022, 100770, ISSN 2352-801X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2022.100770.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Authors are well answered all the comment raised by the  reviewer and revised manuscript accordingly. The manuscript can be accepted for publication 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for previous comments, which further improved our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

My comments have been revised, and can be accepted.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for previous comments, which further improved our manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

The authors have addressed most of my concerns and I just have some minor comments remaining.

Lines 11-19: the background seems so long and I suggest removing some unnecessary statements. For example, I think the second sentence can be deleted. It seems that sentence in lines 17-19 was added in this revised manuscript, I don’t know why you put it here but I think it’s unnecessary.

Lines 34-36: these two sentences can be deleted.

Line 90: you should double-check the Sustainability request for the reference format. Usually, we don’t need to give the full name of the author, and just need to list the family name.

Line 101: what does the “Water Special” mean?

Line 105: this sentence is not clear.

Line 121: what does the “small test” mean? Can we use “preliminary experiment” to replace it?

Line 382: this is not a complete sentence, please improve it.

Author Response

We would like to thank you again for your insightful suggestions and comments, which have helped in improving the quality of our paper. We have revised the paper upon incorporating all your suggestions and comments.

Comment 1:

Lines 11-19: the background seems so long and I suggest removing some unnecessary statements. For example, I think the second sentence can be deleted. It seems that sentence in lines 17-19 was added in this revised manuscript, I don’t know why you put it here but I think it’s unnecessary.

Response:

Thank you for your careful reading and valuable comments. We removed some unnecessary statements. The abstract is revised as follows:

The Wuqing urban section of the North Canal Basin, Tianjin, is an significant gathering place for multisource pollution, showing the characteristics of a stagnant water body supplied by unconventional water sources. With the development of the economy and society, the water quality of the Wuqing urban section of the North Canal Basin, Tianjin, has been seriously polluted due to the discharge of sewage outlets and the influx of nonpoint source pollution from farmland. In this study, based on the results of special water experiments, a two-dimensional hydrodynamic water quality model was constructed. The concentrations ammonia nitrogen (NH₃-N), total phosphorus (TP), and chemical oxygen demand (COD) in the study area were simulated, and the model parameters were calibrated and verified with the measured values. Based on the model verification, the water quality improvement scheme of the ecological floating bed with different plant ratios was set up to simulate the water quality. The research results showed that the average concentrations of NH₃-N, TP, and COD decreased by 10.4%, 15.7%, an of d 26.3%, respectively, after the ecological floating bed was arranged. During model parameter calibration and validation, the RMSE ranges of NH₃-N, TP and COD were 0.09~0.22 mg/L, 0.00~0.02 mg/L and 0.37~2.42 mg/L, respectively. Other statistical indicators are also within a reasonable range, and the model accuracy and reliability are high. The simulation results of different scenarios showed that the optimal ratio of ecological floating bed plants was 700 m² of Scirpus validus Vahl and 700 m² of Canna in zone 1 of the floating bed combination, 430 m² of Scirpus validus Vahl and 170 m² of Iris in zone 2 of the floating bed combination, and 200 m² of Iris and 200 m² of Lythrum salicaria in zone 3 of the floating bed combination. This study can provide a theoretical basis for the sustainable development of water purification in the North Canal. It can also provide a model approach for the implementation of river water purification schemes exemplified by the North Canal.

Comment 2:

Lines 34-36: these two sentences can be deleted.

Response:

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have removed these two sentences.

Comment 3:

Line 90: you should double-check the Sustainability request for the reference format. Usually, we don’t need to give the full name of the author, and just need to list the family name.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this question. According to the format requirements of Sustainability, we made changes. The original sentence in line 90 as follows:

Chen Chengcheng [25], Li Tianyu [26] and Rehan Guli Yimiti [27] all constructed a two-dimensional hydrodynamic-water quality model based on MIKE21 software.

In lines 82-83

The authors in ［25-27］ constructed a two-dimensional hydrodynamic-water quality model based on MIKE21 software.

Please see the red marks in the revised manuscript for details.

Comment 4:

Line 101: what does the “Water Special” mean?

Response:

Thanks for your question. "Water Special" refers to During the 13th Five-Year Plan, China's "National Water Pollution Control and Treatment Science and Technology Major Project", referred to as "Water Special". The original sentence in line 101 as follows:

The preliminary work of Water Special verified the water purification effect of the ecological floating bed combination of different plants through experiments.

We have changed the original sentence to the following：

In lines 93-95

The preliminary work of China's National Water Pollution Control and Treatment Sci-ence and Technology Major Project (Water Special) verified the water purification effect of the ecological floating bed combination of different plants through experiments.

Please see the red marks in the revised manuscript for details.

Comment 5:

Line 105: this sentence is not clear.

Response:

Thank you for your valuable questions. The original sentence in line 105 as follows:

To further and more comprehensively explore the water quality changes in the North Canal, sustainable development of the ecological environment should be achieved[30-31].

We have changed the original sentence to the following：

In lines 98-100

In order to achieve the sustainable development of the ecological environment, it is necessary to more comprehensively explore the changes in the water quality of the North Canal[30-31].

Please see the red marks in the revised manuscript for details.

Comment 6:

Line 121: what does the “small test” mean? Can we use “preliminary experiment” to replace it?

Response:

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. "Small test" can be replaced by "preliminary experiment", which refers to experiments conducted in the laboratory, which we have replaced in the original text.

In lines 113-116

The water special project screened 4 kinds of aquatic plants suitable for the study of the river section through preliminary experiment and plant characteristics and was equipped with ecological floating bed for demonstration project.

Comment 7:

Line 382: this is not a complete sentence, please improve it.

Response:

Thank you for your valuable questions. The original sentence in line 382 as follows:

The model was based on the action mechanism of the ecological floating bed combination on water quality. Consider the removal effects of different plants on NH₃-N, TP and COD.

We have changed the original sentence to the following：

In lines 373-375

The model was based on the action mechanism of the ecological floating bed combination on water quality, and considered the removal effects of different plants on NH₃-N, TP and COD.

Please see the red marks in the revised manuscript for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The comments are addressed well. Many thanks to authors with best wishes in the future!!

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for previous comments, which further improved our manuscript.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract should be well-structured--clear and concise. What authors want to say using the word, "simula-tion" in abstract. May i know it clarification? 

Authors shall use standard languages through out the manuscript, and should provide latest review of the literature related to this work especially in the introduction section. And, all sentences should be well connected. There should be well-transition between paragraphs as well.

I would suggest authors to support results/findings with science and logic with proper citations. The following papers might help authors to support their results and to update the literature.

1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352801X22000479

2. https://iwaponline.com/ws/article/19/3/967/63875/Remediation-of-polluted-river-water-by-floating

In conclusions, authors must present conclusive messages based on the results/findings rather than presenting results only that already discussed in the results and discussion section. Authors should present limitations/future research direction on this kind of research works.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this article, the authors highlight the importance of ecological floating bed models for the treatment of polluted water. The article needs major revision before being considered for publication.

Comments

1. The name of the plant species should be in italics. Iris and Cana, I and C, are capitals.

2. It could be better to include selected plant species used for making ecological floating beds for the treatment and current study in the method section.

3. Authors should provide the novelty of the present study in the introductory part.

4. Results and discussion :This section needs considerable attention for discussion and comparison of data with the previous report.

5. The conclusion section is too lengthy. Make it precise and highlight the important points.

6. Line number: 278Check Effect....

7. Grammatical and typological errors are noticed that should be corrected in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper focus on the ecological floating bed and water purification in a typical polluted river. Although the work provided valuable data such as the purification rate of the ecological floating bed, it is tough due to serious grammatical errors. With regards to the clarity in terms of methods, additional reporting must be shown in the manuscript. For example, the paper leaves out important details of the parameter values of the hydrodynamic model. Some of the concerns that need to be addressed are:

1.     The authors should provide more detail on the calculation process of the hydrodynamic model. Probably appropriate citations/references to highlight the parameters selected during the calculation.

2.     The current abstract need to be improved, the authors should clearly show some background and more details of the results and their further implications for water pollution control.

3.     The authors list too many applications of the MIKE21 model, but it seems to have little correlation with the research content.

4.     Line18, 29, 83, 113, 262, 278, 303: grammar error

5.     Line 90: I could not find any information about the “water special research results”.

6.     I recommend the authors give some examples of the ecological floating bed for water purification.

7.     Section 3.1: There is no need to describe the river water quality in these two years respectively, but focus on the spatiotemporal heterogeneity of river water quality or analyze the differences in water quality by statistical comparison.

Line 299: it is hard to understand that TP concentrations of the summer simulations were not significantly different.

Reviewer 4 Report

1. There are so many grammar errors in this paper and the authors need to significantly improve the writing quality of this paper. I just list some errors in the abstract as below and I believe there are also some similar errors in the other parts of this paper. Perhaps the authors need to consult with a native English speaker.

Line 1：The title of this paper is not clear to me and need to be improved.

Lines 18-19: confusing sentence and need to be improved

Lines 23-24: used past tense but not present tense to present your results please.

Lines 29-30: confusing sentence

2. The abstract looks just like a very simple case study on the simulation of water quality with ecological floating bed, and I don’t find there exists any innovation or improvement compared with previous works. Authors need to have one or two sentences to emphasis why your work is important and what your improvement is compared with previous works. For instance, the configuration of the floating bed has better effect on water purification, or the calculation model is advanced and have relatively higher accuracy than before, something like this.

3. The introduction is very general. The authors just gave some general concepts, listed some of research works and even did not give their results. What is the present research gap and what you plan to do to solve or narrow this gap?

4. I’m very interested in the configuration of the floating bed but I don’t find the detailed description in the materials and methods. In addition, what is your boundary condition? You should give the specific data for the boundary condition, and the value of the parameters also need to be given. I found you considered the sedimentation and resuspension of water quality in your model, and this may be one of your research highlights.

5. Figure 3 has very low quality and it’s hard to see the words in the figure clearly. In addition, I suggest you give the values as mean ± SD but not the mean.

6. I don’t think the calibration of the model parameters should be your result, it seems more suitable to put them at your method. In addition, the scenario setup also needs to be put in the methods section. Only section 3.3.2 presents the results of this study and it seems just a very simple description on water quality. I didn’t find any novelty in the results.

7. Necessary discussion is missed in this paper.