Performance Evaluation of Various Filter Media for Multi-Functional Purposes to Urban Constructed Wetlands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments are inserted (yellow color marked with text box) in the manuscript pdf.

I have serious concerns about the experimental set-up and the unrealistic hydraulic loading of stormwater filters. The hydraulic design flow is 5 m/h which is very high. You can compare with industrial sand filters which can go up to 10 m/h but remember, they are equipped with backwashing. Usually they are operated at a flow of 3-4 m/h, Your filter depth is only 15 cm and width of column 10 cm. This is a wrong length-width ratio. If you want to extrapolate your results to reality (which you try to do by estimating costs, performance etc) you must design your experiment much more carefully. 

I can´t see the novelty in your paper and unfortunately I find many mistakes and uncertainties with your experiment and the interpretations and discussion of your results.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the reviewer for the valuable comments that have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of the manuscript. We have carefully reviewed and addressed each comment and suggestion provided by the reviewer, as detailed in the attached file (Pages 1-6). Your feedback has been instrumental in improving our work, and we sincerely appreciate your input.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the submitted manuscript, the authors evaluated the effectiveness of organic and inorganic filter media for multi-functional purposes to UCWs, utilizing synthetic stormwater runoff influent. The topic taken up by the authors is original and the data obtained are interesting. Some specific comments on this manuscript are listed below:

1.       Introduction contains basic information. The authors could better emphasize the novelty of the research carried out. Please answer the question what does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

2.       Abstract - please add explanations for all abbreviations presented in the abstract (i.e. line 15: SEM-EDX, line 17: TSS, COD, TN, and TP).

3.       Materials and Methods -Line 103: “…which were determined through standard laboratory tests..” – could you explain ? Add briefly information about the exact tests performed.

4.       Materials and Methods- Line 142- “…according to the standard methods for the examination 142 of water and wastewater” – specify what methods were used, etc. The authors should provide information about measurement conditions and Instruments/equipment (brand, society, city ​​& country…etc). Please add.

5.       Line 149 - The average ± standard deviation for the different water quality parameters obtained 149 from the experiment is presented in Table 2. There is no information about the number n, from how many values ​​were the mean and standard deviation calculated?

6.       Materials and Methods - add information about how long the experiment was conducted, was it 480 minutes (8 hours)? This should be completed so that there is no doubt.

7.       Figure 3 - the shading in the figure is unfortunately very illegible, could it be presented, for example, in different colors? So that readers have no doubts. The legend should be moved under figure 3.

8.       Is presented in point 3.3. the assessment of the efficiency of filter media is based on the methodology presented in the literature, have the authors themselves proposed such a method of media assessment?

9.       Adapt references to literature items to the requirements of the journal, references are given in a superscript and should be written in a standard way.

10.    Correct minor typographical errors throughout the article, such as missing spaces line 112 – 15 cm.

11.   The conclusion should be started with sentences highlighting the objectives of this work and please
mention the crucial result in the end of conclusion.

 

 

Author Response

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the reviewer for the valuable comments that have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of the manuscript. We have carefully reviewed and addressed each comment and suggestion provided by the reviewer, as detailed in the attached file (Pages 6-8). Your feedback has been instrumental in improving our work, and we sincerely appreciate your input.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present study aims to evaluate filter media performance in mitigating these challenges through multi-functional applications in urban constructed wetlands (UCWs). Column tests were conducted using organic filter media, including biochar (BC), woodchip (WC), anthracite (AT), and activated carbon (AC), as well as inorganic filter media such as ceramic balls (CB), basalt (BS), and porous sand (PS). These findings emphasize the potential applications of various filter media in UCW designs aiming at achieving carbon neutrality, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable urban development.

Some minor suggestions:

1.     Fig 2 The lack of legend in the picture makes it impossible to distinguish the 8 different filter media.

2.     Fig 3 same question as fig2, the authors use different grids to represent different elements, making it difficult for the reader to tell them apart. Consider using different colors to distinguish them.

3.     Table3  Can you use different colors to distinguish H,M and L?

Author Response

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the reviewer for the valuable comments that have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of the manuscript. We have carefully reviewed and addressed each comment and suggestion provided by the reviewer, as detailed in the attached file (Page 8). Your feedback has been instrumental in improving our work, and we sincerely appreciate your input.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no particular comments for the second round

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors introduced all required corrections indicated in the first review.

I have just one more small suggestion: think about changing the colors in Figure 3, I think it would be worth diversifying the colors more, because unfortunately it is not very readable now.

I recommend accepting the article in its current form.