Bioremediation of Metal-Polluted Industrial Wastewater with Algal-Bacterial Consortia: A Sustainable Strategy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The two pictures of the same heavy metal in Figure 1 can be combined into one picture so that the differences can be seen more clearly. It is recommended that other pictures be treated in the same way.

2. Line 75-82, it is necessary to cite relevant articles to support the point of view in the article. It is suggested that CO2 favors the lipid and biodiesel production of microbialgal-bacterial granular sludge, Towards advanced marine wastewater treatment by bacterial-algal symbiosis system with different bacteria and algae inoculation ratios.

3. Lines 141-146, E1 the algae-bacteria same as CT1,  E2 the algae-bacteria same as CT2, and E3 the algae-bacteria same as CT3, the author need clearer explanations to reduce confusion for readers.

4. Line 148, "The algae-bacteria consortium was washed after experiment and all the clay, dust and sand were removed", when the bacteria were washed away, the heavy metals adsorbed on the bacteria would also be washed away, so the removal of heavy metals is only related to It is related to algae, not a common function of algae-bacteria system.

Some sentences need to be revised.

Author Response

Respected Professor,

hope you ll be fine.

Please find the attached file. the detailed of all comments response one by one well addressed.

with kind Regards,

Dr. Amin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

- urgency and purpose of research in the introduction section are unclear.

- there is no relation between the title and the introduction section's explanation.

- the standard method used in the materials and methods section needs to be detailed, especially for BOD, Total hardness, Color, Chloride Mg hardness, pH, Ca hardness, TSS, Turbidity, electric Conductivity, Fluoride, COD, and TDS. 

-  experimental design is unclear and needs to be detailed. No experimental period was found for all pots. There was also no information regarding algal-bacterial for the experiment pots.

- the results have been well interpreted but not adequately comprehensively discussed. A comprehensive discussion of the results is needed to support the conclusion. 

Author Response

Respected reviewer,

I hope you'll be fine.

Please find the attached comments of the manuscript point to point response.

All the comments are well addressed.

with kind regards,

Dr. Amin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is nicely written, and the background information, methodological steps and results are well written. The manuscript deals with a serious problem that many countries are facing nowadays, especially developing countries. So, the need for a sustainable method to remediate water pollution is essential. However, the authors should provide more information regarding their manuscript before its publication in this journal, see below the comments:

·       Abstract: Please provide a short but comprehensive background of the need for bioremediation of water.

·       Introduction: Lines 67-71: Please split this into sentences to clarify the message.

·       Line 75-77: If the Algae-Bacteria has been already used, then what is an innovation of your study? Please highlight it here.

1.     Line 128, page 3; It is important to provide the coordinates of the study area in the methods and material section of the manuscript.

2.     Line 134, page 3; Why did you choose these elements for research studies?

·       There are some typo errors and grammatical mistakes in the manuscript (such as page.5 line 186 and 192); Please carefully check the manuscript.

·       The use of abbreviations is not uniform.

·       Line 142-147, page 4; Provide the quantity of each microorganism used while developing consortia.

·       The units used in the manuscript should be uniform (as in subsection 2.3 and 2.5, page 4) the use of the unit is not uniform).

·        line 116-117, page 3; it will be more appropriate if first describe the climatic information like weather, rainfall etc of the study site in method and materials section.

·       Some photos from the pots and containers should be added if possible.

·       Some of the citations is not according to the journal format (Lines 70-71, page 3). Please read the MDPI guidelines for authors.

There are minor issues with the language, which shall be reformed by revising it.

Author Response

Respected reviewer,

I hope you'll be fine.

Please find the attached comments of the manuscript point to point response.

All the comments are well addressed.

with kind regards,

Dr. Amin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

accept