Analysis of the Degradation Characteristics of Chlorpyrifos in an Electrochemically Constructed Wetland Coupled System under Different Pesticide Exposure Conditions and Microbial Community Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled “Degradation characteristics of chlorpyrifos and microbial community assessment using an electrochemical-constructed wetland coupled system” by Wang et al. with propose an electrochemical-constructed wetland coupling technology as a new form of pesticide treatment, which combines the advantages of a constructed wetland and the electrochemical oxidation process. Also they analyzed the changes in the microbial community in the system and annotated their functions to understand the underlying mechanisms of degradation.

The following comments need to be addressed:

     - In lines 84-85: you mentioned that the amount of pesticide added depended on the dosage of pesticide and the rate of loss in the environment. Please mention the concentrations of pesticides added either in individual or compound experiments.

-        - Please include statistical analysis of the data obtained.

-         - Lines 158-160: please revise the sentence.

-         - Lines 220-222: please revise.

-      - In Figure 5, data of initial, CW, and ECW are overlapping and need to be separated.

-       - Please consider revision the whole manuscript for improving the language.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Needs moderate revision for improving the language.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The overall structure of the article is clear and the content is substantial. The research significance is evident. It's recommended to highlight the innovative points and significance of the study more in the title.
2. The description of experimental methods is quite brief. It's suggested to supplement more details on the experimental setup diagrams, design logics of each treatment group, and operational procedures to make the methods more complete and systematic.
3. In the results analysis, statistical tests could be considered to increase the reliability of the analysis. For example, analyze if the differences in pesticide degradation effects and removal rates between treatment groups reach significant levels.
4. The statistical charts in Figure 2 could be changed to bar charts to make the data differences between treatment groups more intuitive.
5. For high-throughput sequencing results, alpha diversity and beta diversity analyses could be added to make the microbial structure analysis more comprehensive.
6. For PICRUSt functional predictions, significance and correlation analyses could be considered to identify key functions related to pesticide removal effects.
7. The conclusions are quite broad, an in-depth discussion on the mechanisms of microbial community structural and functional changes under different conditions could be attempted, and specific suggestions proposed to improve the pesticide removal efficiency of the system.
8. The references are limited to Chinese literature, more English references are recommended to increase the international perspective of the research.
9. The language description could be further refined to avoid repetition and enhance readability.
10. Overall, this study has certain innovation and application value. It is hoped that the authors could further improve the article based on the review comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Based on my review, the quality of English in this manuscript is good overall. Here are a few suggestions to further improve the clarity and flow:

• In a few places, the sentence structure could be tighter and more direct. For example, in the abstract "We here propose a combined technology..." could be changed to "We propose a combined technology...".
• Some sentences use passive voice when active voice would sound more natural. For example, "Chlorpyrifos was the only pesticide in the water for individual exposure conditions..." could be "We only used chlorpyrifos in the water for individual exposure conditions...".
• There are some minor grammar issues, like missing articles ("Under influence of electric field...") or incorrect prepositions ("...sorption by substrate..."). Carefully proofreading to catch these small mistakes would polish the writing.
• The tone is appropriately academic overall. Certain phrasing sounds informal, like "This explains why...". Replacing such phrases with more formal language would boost the scholarly tone.
• The description of the methodology and results is logically structured and easy to follow. Adding more transition words between sections would further improve flow.
• The writing is concise and avoids redundancy. The ideas are communicated clearly in a compact way.

Overall the authors demonstrate a strong command of scientific writing in English. With some minor edits to tighten sentence structure, correct grammar, and formalize word choice, the manuscript would meet the high standards for publication in an academic journal. The technical content is clearly presented and the language does not impede understanding.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the article provides valuable insights into the degradation of chlorpyrifos in an electrochemical-constructed wetland system. The study's experimental setup and findings are presented clearly, but some sections could benefit from minor improvements in organization and clarity. The microbial community analysis is a significant contribution to the research and should be further highlighted and discussed in the context of the study's objectives.

1.      Title and Abstract: The abstract provides a concise summary of the research, but it could be improved by specifying the key findings or contributions more explicitly.

2.      Introduction: The introduction should be organized the content for better flow and clarity.

3.      Materials and Methods: The materials and methods section provides detailed information about the experimental setup, but it could benefit from more explicit information regarding the parameters, procedures, and equipment used. Missing the statistical methods used for data analysis if applicable.

4.      Results and Discussion: The microbial community analysis is a significant aspect of the study. However, it would be helpful to provide more details on how changes in microbial community diversity and function relate to the overall findings of the study.

5.      Conclusion: The conclusion should consider mentioning the practical implications and applications of the research.

6.      References: please correct the citation style and format in the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No More comments are required.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All requests for revisions have been met, and I think the manuscript is acceptable in its present form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the comments response. The present form of manuscript is ready to publish.