Design of an Enhanced SAT Using Zeolite for the Removal of Ammonia Nitrogen at a Bengbu Aquatic Farm in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study analyzes the effectiveness of using zeolite for removing ammonia nitrogen using different medium-packing methods under various hydrodynamic conditions for an aquatic farm in China. Overall, this study can potentially be found interesting by some readers. However, some questions/issues need further addressed by the authors.

 

1. The introduction did not identify the gap between the previous studies and this study. For instance, since SAT and zeolite have been applied in previous studies, what are their drawbacks, and what is proposed to improve in this study?
2. It is better to mark the name of the soil columns in Fig 1.
3. On line 161, the correlation coefficient is referred to as R2. However, R2 is defined as the coefficient of determination and equals the square of the correlation coefficient. Based on the context, R2 is the value being used. Therefore, it should be the coefficient of determination.
4. Any reference for reasoning on lines 175 – 176?
5. Acronym such as PV needs to be explained the first time it is introduced. For instance, “PV” on line 189
6. Is the method generalizable and scalable? Can this study be applied to other sites, and what is the potential usage/application of this study? The authors may discuss more in conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript sustainability-1977157, entitled “Design of an enhanced SAT using zeolite for the removal of ammonia nitrogen at a demonstration site of Bengbu Aquatic Farm in China” submitted by Zhang et al. reported and discussed the results of a study where the effect of zeolite, in comparison with other treatment and by applying different approaches, was assessed on soil aquifer treatment for ammonia nitrogen removal.

Considering the importance of pollutant strategy for wastewater recovery in order to improve aquaculture sustainability, I believe that the manuscript is of potential interest to readers of “Sustainability” and falls within its scope.

In general, the experimental activity was carried out following strict scientific logic and according to widely used methods which have made it possible to obtain reliable results. The manuscript is well-written and simple to read.

Abstract: it is ok

Keyword: do non-repeat words already present in the title

Introduction: well represent the state of the art and the research question.

Materials and Methods: some information is missing and needs to be assessed.

Results and discussion: well written, linear and concise.

Conclusion: based on the main findings from the experimental activity.

My specific comments, which I hope will help the authors to improve their manuscript, are enclosed in the attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf