Development of Bacterial Augmented Floating Treatment Wetlands System (FTWs) for Eco-Friendly Degradation of Malachite Green Dye in Water

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the manuscript is interesting, however, there are several aspects that should be improved, before being considered for publishing.

1. The abstract is too large, it is recommended to be more concise and clearer. 

2. For better visibility on databases, the authors are asked not to repeat among keywords the words/concepts included in the article's title. Entering different words in the title and in the keywords can improve the search for the paper in metasearch engines and internet databases.  

3. The figure in front of the Introduction is pointless and it has to be moved and explained or deleted.

 

3. The introduction is too general and the aim of the research is unclear. The research objective should be stated at the end of the introduction. Also, the presentation of the structure of the paper is missing.

4. The part of the Literature Review has to be reconsidered, as it is insufficiently developed. There are missing relevant information that are needed to construct the literature gap. General text about the topic (one para), focus on its relevance and importance for the industry, practice, and theory. Then briefly inform readers that there is a surge in wellness experience, and xx and xx studies have been organized so far. One para on what has been done so far on the topic. Then talk about research gaps- What are the keys and why are they important or need to be addressed now? Clearly present 3-4 research gaps on this topic. Finally, present the focus of the current study. What are its RQs and details on the method – briefly say about data, country, context, and theory. Which is the novelty and contribution of the study

5. The methodology part must be improved. A map of the area is required. It si stated that "Aquatic plants used in the study were collected from various sites of Lahore, Pakistan". Please explain when?, from which locations?, how many, and how was the sample created to be representative?.  Please explain based on which criteria the wine samples were selected.

6. The results are discussed with valid references. That part looks consistent. 

7. the conclusions part is missing in mentioning the limits of the research (which exists in fact to this study) and there are no recommendations for the government, scholars, forests/parks administrators etc.   

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The main focus of the reviewed work was the use of the Floating Treatment Wetland System (FTW) enriched with specific bacterial strains to remove malachite green dye from an aqueous solution. The topic of dye removal by FTW systems is not unique, but neither is it widely studied. By Scopus search with phrases Floating AND Treatment AND Wetland AND Dye 6 outputs have been obtained. The manuscript is well-prepared, organized and written, as well summarized by a graphical abstract.

In general, I am satisfied with the overall manuscript quality, but I got some major comments and suggestions that have to be considered before final acceptance.

 

1.       The chemical formula of malachite green dye shown in Table 1 is low resolution and presents low quality, please improve.

2.       While in general the introduction contains all the basic elements, a broader explanation is needed for the selection of malachite green for the study. Is it an important pollutant because of the charges that are carried into the environment, or was applied just as a model compound?

3.       Make sure that all Latin species names are in italics.

4.       Please clarify in Materials $ methods (M&M) section point 2.7.1 – it is mentioned that the enriched industrial wastewater were applied with addition of MG. Please provide information about full composition of the wastewater.

5.       M&M section what apparatus was applied to measure EC and TDS, what were the ranges of their measurement capacity? Provide details.

6.       What were the criteria for determining inoculum volume for T1 and T3? I understand that one of the criteria was the concentration of bacteria measured by optical density. However, how to relate this to the volume of the reactor, to enable for instance inoculation of the full scale studies?

7.       There are standard deviations in the results section. However, it is not clear from the protocol whether the experimental trials or only the measurements were repeated to allow for statistical analysis. Please clarify.

8.       Why no enumeration of the bacteria in T1 was not provided/presented in the section 3.7 of the results? Definitely, even without inoculation, there are some bacteria in the background. It is worth to consider measurement, how inoculation affects overall bacteria content in relation to the augmented systems.

9.       Conclusion section should more precise. For instance, it is stated “floating treatment wetlands is a cost-effective” but in fact no economic analysis was performed or even considered in the discussion section. Please focus on influence of inoculation. The statement that FTW inoculated were better is too general, especially when we compare results from T1 and T3. It is worth to mention what was the boots (in percentage) to overall system efficiency. I would also suggest explaining what next steps should be involved for further process implementation and optimization.

 

 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I really appreciate the modifications provided by the authors, which correctly addressed my concerns.

I only have a few concluding remarks that should be included in the final version of the publication.

1. I like explanations related to the missing descriptions in the Materials & Method section. However, while the modifications to the introduction and conclusion are clearly visible in the tracked version of the changes, I do not see modifications to the Materials & Method section. All required material is presented in responses, please add them to the main text or prepare a Supplementary Information file to include this data. They are not crucial for me, but for the potential readers. Should be included.

2. In the discussion section. I recommand to add information about operational costs of the FTWs, from Azfal el al. 2019 or also Pajares et al., 2019. This is valuable information that can attract some readers and citations.

3. The MG chemical formula from Table 1 is compressed, please extend vertically.  

 

Author Response

 

1.  I like explanations related to the missing descriptions in the Materials & Method section.	As per the reviewer’s suggestion, missing data has been provided in the form of Supplementary information file. Additionally, in the main document, small notes in brackets have also been added to direct the readers towards Supplementary information file.
2. In the discussion section. I recommend to add information about operational costs of the FTWs.	According to the reviewer’s suggestion, information about operational costs of the FTWs has been added as track changes with references.
3. The MG chemical formula from Table 1 is compressed, please extend vertically.	As per the reviewer’s suggestion, MG chemical formulas has been extended vertically in the Table 1.