Assessing the Quality of Treated Wastewater for Irrigation: A Case Study of Ain Sefra Wastewater Treatment Plant

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study investigated the treated wastewater for irrigation in southwestern Algeria. However, according to the comments below, this MS needs a minor revision.

 

-         Highlights and keywords (i.e., wastewater treatment) should be further improved to show the significance of the findings.

-         Lines 95-120 of the Introduction need to write again shortly and focus on the aim of this study.

-         Materials and Methods: what are the ingredients of influent wastewater of the WWTP?

-         The authors should use updated references within eight years. This MS used too many old refs., such as 1950,1964, and 1940.

-         Figure 4 should move to Appendix.

 

-         The concentration of parameters mentioned in section 3 should be in average ± SD like in Figure 6.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer, each and every one of the suggestions has been implemented in the manuscript exactly as suggested, and I am sending a response sheet to the questions. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

How were the water quality parameters assessed in the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) of Ain Sefra, southwestern Algeria? Can you provide details on the methods employed for the analysis and evaluation of the WWTP's performance for irrigation purposes?

 

What were the specific findings regarding the removal of nitrates in the WWTP? Did the levels fall below the established limit for irrigation water, and if so, what implications does this have for the suitability of the treated wastewater for agricultural use?

 

Could you discuss the results related to the dissolved oxygen content in the WWTP? How do these findings indicate the efficiency of biological processes and the degradation of organic matter, which are crucial factors in determining the suitability of the treated wastewater for irrigation?

 

The study mentions elevated ammonia levels in the treated wastewater, exceeding typical ranges for irrigation. Can you elaborate on the potential consequences of these elevated ammonia levels and their impact on the suitability of the treated wastewater for agricultural purposes?

 

The groundwater suitability indices were calculated to evaluate the suitability of groundwater for irrigation. Can you explain how these indices were determined and how they categorize the samples as either excellent or good? Additionally, what are the concerns raised by the sodium percentage values and their potential negative effects on the soil?

The English language editing should be done. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I am pleased to inform you that we have incorporated each and every one of your suggestions into the manuscript, following your instructions to the letter. We invite you to review the attached document to verify the implemented changes.

Furthermore, we have thoroughly addressed all the questions you raised, providing detailed and accurate answers. We have put in maximum effort to ensure that the responses are comprehensive and rigorous.

We appreciate your ongoing collaboration and remain open to receiving any further suggestions or concerns you may have. We highly value your participation in this process and aim to meet all of your expectations.

Sincerely,

Pilar Legua Murcia.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents the evaluation of water quality parameters in a sewage treatment plant (WWTP) in Ain Sefra in southwestern Algeria. The study used various methods to analyze the efficiency of quality and suitability of the sewage treatment plant for irrigation. The results presented in the article are important for the local community and those dealing with agriculture and water management in the Ain Sefra region. The layout of the work in the article is correct, the experimental studies are well-planned and the results are properly discussed. Below, the reviewer points out things that need improvement before accepting the publication:

·        Lines 48-50 Replace „ Algeria, despite having a population of over 43 million people, faces constraints in terms of freshwater resources” with Despite having a population of over 43 million people, Algeria faces constraints in terms of freshwater resources.

·        Line 52 Replace „The limited country” with The limited country's

·        Lines 64-66 Replace „It is crucial to ensure that the wastewater quality is appropriate for agricultural purposes and does not contain contaminants that could pose risks to crops or public health.” With Ensuring that the wastewater quality is appropriate for agricultural purposes and does not contain contaminants that could pose risks to crops or public health is crucial.

·        Study area: Does the sewage treatment plant only collect municipal sewage and rainwater? Is wastewater from industrial plants also discharged to wastewater treatment plants?

·        Assessment of water quality:Please describe the method of sampling. Were some samples preserved during collection?

·        Assessment of water quality: The samples were analyzed by 3 institutions. Were the samples stored in a refrigerator at 4 degrees Celsius? Was each sample analyzed within 24 hours?

·        Line 211 Replace „applied” with were applied

·        Line 230-231 replace „stabilised” with stabilized

·        Line 256 Replace „having” with to have

·        Line 259 Replace „having” with to have

·        Line 261 Replace  „ corresponded” with corresponding

·        Line 265 Replace  „ corresponded” with corresponding

·        Line 280 Replace „litre” with liter

·        Line 307 Replace „litre” with liter

·        Line 317 Replace „to highly effective” with to highly effective

·        Please put error bars in Figures 5 and 6

·        How can it be explained that the nitrate content is highest in February and March?

·        How can the significant increase in ammonium nitrogen in April be explained?

·        Figure 7 i 8 - please improve the quality of the drawings

·        Line 521 Replace „identify” with identifying

·        Line 521 Replace „optimisation” with optimization

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I am pleased to inform you that we have incorporated each and every one of your suggestions into the manuscript, following your instructions to the letter. We invite you to review the attached document to verify the implemented changes.

Furthermore, we have thoroughly addressed all the questions you raised, providing detailed and accurate answers. We have put in maximum effort to ensure that the responses are comprehensive and rigorous.

We appreciate your ongoing collaboration and remain open to receiving any further suggestions or concerns you may have. We highly value your participation in this process and aim to meet all of your expectations.

Sincerely,

Pilar Legua Murcia.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The research report "Assessing the Quality of Treated Wastewater for Irrigation: Case Study Ain Sefra WWTP" is a time demanding as "state of the art." However, the article needs to improve a little bit. Therefore, I recommend publishing the article after minor revision. I have suggested the following remarks herein, believing they can help authors improve the updated version.

 

1.      There are many short abbreviation need to write in full abbreviation even in abstract.

2.      Revised line 29, if possible remove it.

3.      Please refer some relevant works and cite them in the introduction.

4.      In line 134, give a reference.

 

5.      Revised line 523, if possible remove it.

 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I am pleased to inform you that we have incorporated each and every one of your suggestions into the manuscript, following your instructions to the letter. We invite you to review the attached document to verify the implemented changes.

Furthermore, we have thoroughly addressed all the questions you raised, providing detailed and accurate answers. We have put in maximum effort to ensure that the responses are comprehensive and rigorous.

We appreciate your ongoing collaboration and remain open to receiving any further suggestions or concerns you may have. We highly value your participation in this process and aim to meet all of your expectations.

Sincerely,

Pilar Legua Murcia.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx