Reusing Sewage Effluent in Greening Urban Areas: A Case Study of: Southern Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the biogenes content in sewage streams is well known I think authors should add at least one paragraph about safety of its use in context of potential pathogens and micropollutants in sewage.

Author Response

Comment 1: Although the biogenes content in sewage streams is well known, I think authors should add at least one paragraph about safety of its use in context of potential pathogens and micropollutants in sewage.

Response 1:  In the introduction section, we added a paragraph on the safety of reusing wastewater in context of potential pathogens and micropollutants in wastewater.

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted article, “Reusing sewage effluent in greening urban areas: A case study: Southern Jeddah, Saudi Arabia” is interesting, original and within the scope of the journal but some changes should be addressed:

1.       Please update the state of the art. It will be interesting to discuss briefly about the pollutant dynamic evolution in water please see https://doi.org/10.37358/RC.19.10.7575)

2.       Please describe briefly the samples preparation method before the investigations (lines 110-120).

3.       At line 116 please mention the name of first author and keep the reference"….the method of [22]".  

4.       I recommend to insert some figures instead of tables 1 and 2 because it is difficult to compare the results.

5.       Try to extend the conclusion section.  

Author Response

Comment 1: Chapter 2 (Material and methods) should be completed: provide the types of soils that were sampled for testing

Response 1: The types of soils that were sampled for testing are now included in the Materials and Methods section as recommended.

Comment 2: Check the font size in the text - from line 98 to 251 and line spacing from line 258-291

Response 2: The font size was checked along the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Irrigation with sewage effluent provides crops with water and nutrients. At the same time it provides a convenient means of sewage disposal through land treatment, preventing potential health and environmental hazards caused by the uncontrolled flow of wastewater.

In dry and semi-arid conditions, where irrigation is a prerequisite for supporting plant growth, the importance of wastewater as a source of irrigation water is as great as the need for disposal. For this reason, the research presented in the article is important from a scientific and practical point of view.

However, the following problems need to be improved:

-       Chapter 2 (Material and methods) should be completed: provide the types of soils that were sampled for testing

-       Check the font size in the text - from line 98 to 251 and line spacing from line 258-291

Author Response

Comment 1: Line 39 – Please correct ”red sea”

Comment 11: Line 290-291 – Pay attention to Pb because it is specified twice. Response 11: We appreciate you carefully reading and commenting on our article. We have since removed the excessive lead data you pointed out in the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Line 39 – Please correct ”red sea”

Line 106 – 108 – Please put the correct reference. In the text, it is specified that there is an EPA method of determination of pH and conductivity but reference 19 refers to an article and there is an APHA method but the reference is too general. Please be more specific about the reference of the methods that were used. Also, please specify if the COD kit that was used uses a standard method or another method.

Line 111 - Please put a comma between ”nitrate ammonia” and ”sulfate chloride”.

Line 111- 120 - There is specified that for total phosphorus was performed digestion with nitric (line 111-113) acid and with ascorbic acid (line 114). What is the method of digestion that was used?

For ammonia concentration please be more specific about the method that was used in the reference.

Please specify that nitrate concentration was used as a colourimetric determination of nitrate in plant tissue, but the sample was from water and soil. It was an alternative method? Why was not used a specific analysis method for the water sample and another specific method for the soil?

Line 117-118 – There is an error regarding the ion Cl analysis with ICP – OES. Please specify what is the method that was used for Cl concentration determination.

Line 131 – COD characterizes the amount of chemicals that can be oxidized by K2Cr2O4 to H2SO4 in the presence of HgSO4. Therefore, it is not a physical parameter. Also, according to It's Time to Replace the Term ``Heavy Metals'' with ``Potentially Toxic Elements'' When Reporting Environmental Research (archives-ouvertes.fr) and therefor maybe it is better to use another term for the studied metal instead of the term ”heavy metal”.

Line 188 – For Table 1 – Please specify the meaning of ”LSD” and the meaning of the letters ”F” and ”P” and the meaning of superscripts

 Line 254 – For Table 2 – Please specify the meaning of ”LSD” and the meaning of the letters ”F” and ”P” and the meaning of superscripts

 

 Line 290-291 – Pay attention to Pb because it is specified twice.

Author Response

Response 1: The symbol was corrected into NO3.

Comment 2: Fig. 21: "Sewage effluent" - the solid residue from wastewater treatment is called "Sewage sludge". Please explain and discuss what was used for fertilization.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for his deep insight, we corrected the sewage effluent into sewage sludge. The term sludge is more accurate as it describe the residues used in fertilization of various plant species.

Comment 3: 22: I suggest rethinking and changing the Keywords to better indicate the issues in the article.

Response 3: We have changed some of the keywords to better reflect the issue in the article as suggested by the reviewers. For example “treated water” was changed into “water reuse”; “reforestation” was changed into “toxic metals”; “soil characteristics” was changed into “mineral restoration”

Comment 4: 74: „water effluent” – What is it??

Response 4: The term water effluent was corrected into wastewater effluent.

Comment 5: mg/L – the correct notation is mg‧dm-3.

Response 5: We appreciate you enabling us to pay attention to the proper notation. Throughout the entire manuscript, we replaced the notation mg/L to mg.dm-3.

Comment 6: 322 „4. Conclusions”. The chapter should be expanded and include more research results.

Response 6: As advised by the reviewer, we expanded the conclusion section to include more study findings.

Comment 7: Improvement of the English language is required.

Response 7: During the revision process, we already did our best to polish the English language. Additionally, we sent the manuscript to an online language editing agency for linguistic correction in order to prepare it correctly.

Comment 8: Preparation of articles in accordance with the requirements of the journal is required.

Response 8: According to the reviewer's recommendations, we did our best to format the article in compliance with the journal's criteria.

Reviewer 5 Report

13: "NO3" - Subscript.

Fig. 21: "Sewage effluent" - the solid residue from wastewater treatment is called "Sewage sludge". Please explain and discuss what was used for fertilization.

22: I suggest rethinking and changing the Keywords to better indicate the issues in the article.

74: „water effluent” – What is it??

mg/L – the correct notation is mg‧dm-3.

322 „4. Conclusions”. The chapter should be expanded and include more research results.

 

Improvement of the English language is required.

Preparation of articles in accordance with the requirements of the journal is required.

Author Response

Comment 1: 13: "NO3" - Subscript.

Response 1: The symbol was corrected into NO3.

Comment 2: Fig. 21: "Sewage effluent" - the solid residue from wastewater treatment is called "Sewage sludge". Please explain and discuss what was used for fertilization.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for his deep insight, we corrected the sewage effluent into sewage sludge. The term sludge is more accurate as it describe the residues used in fertilization of various plant species.

Comment 3: 22: I suggest rethinking and changing the Keywords to better indicate the issues in the article.

Response 3: We have changed some of the keywords to better reflect the issue in the article as suggested by the reviewers. For example “treated water” was changed into “water reuse”; “reforestation” was changed into “toxic metals”; “soil characteristics” was changed into “mineral restoration”

Comment 4: 74: „water effluent” – What is it??

Response 4: The term water effluent was corrected into wastewater effluent.

Comment 5: mg/L – the correct notation is mg‧dm-3.

Response 5: We appreciate you enabling us to pay attention to the proper notation. Throughout the entire manuscript, we replaced the notation mg/L to mg.dm-3.

Comment 6: 322 „4. Conclusions”. The chapter should be expanded and include more research results.

Response 6: As advised by the reviewer, we expanded the conclusion section to include more study findings.

Comment 7: Improvement of the English language is required.

Response 7: During the revision process, we already did our best to polish the English language. Additionally, we sent the manuscript to an online language editing agency for linguistic correction in order to prepare it correctly.

Comment 8: Preparation of articles in accordance with the requirements of the journal is required.

Response 8: According to the reviewer's recommendations, we did our best to format the article in compliance with the journal's criteria.

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

I thank you for making changes.