Performance Evaluation of Sponge Anaerobic Baffled Reactor for Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is about the performance evaluation of a sponge anaerobic baffled reactor. The study has the potential for publication. However, I have the following comments to improve the quality of the manuscript.
1. Expand HRT when it is mentioned for the first time in the abstract.
2. Units of Celsius need to be consistent throughout the text.
3. The paragraph starting from Line 85 needs references.
4. What are the reasons for selecting the composition of synthetic wastewater? Is the wastewater composition similar to the wastewater in the region? Support with references. Mention all the chemicals used with manufacturer details.
5. Table 2 needs to be revised for settings issues.
6. Has the study operated continuously/semi-batch or in batch operation? How many cycles operated in total and per HRT selected? Is the influent water quality the same for all the HRTs studied? What conditions were kept consistent throughout the study? Explain well.
7. Mention all the equations used to calculate parameters such as OLR.
8. Mention all the analytical methods and instruments used in section 2.5.
9. Since you have used triplicate samples to analyze the parameters, include the error bars in the figures.
10. Results and findings must be supported by previously published articles whenever needed.
11. 70% of the references are 5 years or older. Replace some with recent articles.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageUnits should be consistent throughout the text and check for grammar errors in the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease address the following comments:
1. The manuscript has lack of novelty as previous research articles have been published with same mthodology and experimental setups. How is this work brining novelty to the field of MBR technology?
2. It has been observed that most of the citations are from outdated literature dating back to 2008. The literture review should be updated having last 5 years of publication in the field.
inappropriate self citation ,whats the major difference of previous published data ?
3. There is weak statistical analysis as there is lack of error analysis which might be reflecting the data has been refined? If the results are in triplicate then standard deviation should be added in all figures.
4. How is this research different than the already published work by the researcher. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes13010079
5. why the time period during performance evaluation is not consistent? Sponge fouling should be considred or not while HRT is decreased from 18 to 6 hours respectively? SEM analysis should be added for each HRT to support the results.
6. Synthetic wastewater composition was formulated under what criteria to keep it specifically at 408 mg/L. Again how can it be verfied that COD remained at same level for each HRT as you mentioned 300 L storage tank thus degradation occurs within storage tank. May be the COD already dropped in tank and lower COD is added into tank ?
7. Did the author investigate the change in biomass nature during different phases as the justification for ORE 80% is linked while lowering the HRT to 8 hours. This is an inference and scientific evidence should be provided for such claim by the researchers.
General Comments: Overall the manuscript needs major revision to improve the quality.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease comments find in the attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed the manuscript titled "Performance evaluation of sponge anaerobic baffled reactor for municipal wastewater treatment" and I have the following comments:-
Abstract
1- It should be noted that 8 hrs is not the optimum time but the shortest time to reach the permissible limits.
2- Please indicate why choosing temperature of 35 0C, although 25 0C is known to be most suitable for bacterial growth.
In the Introduction
1- English editing is required as in lines 33, 42,...
2- Abbreviations should be detailed when first mentioned (SDG6),
3- Please rephrase lines 67-72 and lines 78-82,
4- The disadvantages of each modification technique should be listed right after the technique (starting from line 97),
In Materials and Methods
1- How did you establish the composition of synthetic wastewater in table 1, or where is the reference?
2- Please indicate why did you decide to fill the remaining volume of the reactor with synthetic wastewater not with municipal wastewater?
3- If the reactor was operated for 9 month, why did you need the acclimatization through the startup phase?
4- In table 2, why didn't you fix the no. of days for each HRT?
In Results and Discussion
1- In lines 242-243, please check the values of ORP (-110 to 315 then -300mV)?
2- In fig 3, what do you think the increase in COD removal with time is attributed to?
3- Please adjust font of titles, lines 257 and 258,
4- Recent references are required for lines 259-262, may be https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-024-02218-y, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-03153-1
5- Fig. 3, where is the end of the figure caption?
In the conclusions
1- Please focus on your findings, your research output,
2- Please rephrase lines 479-482,
3- Instead of indicating that SABR is replacing ABR, it might be better to indicate that ABR is modified to SABR.
References
1- Please include some more recent references 2023-2024.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor English editing is required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTry to keep the numbers with ± symbol consistent. Some values have space between the "±" symbol and the number; some do not. In line 94 (35 ± 1 °C)", in line 166 "50±09 and 30±3 mg/L" etc. Maintain consistency throughout the manuscript.
Comment 6 responses should be in the manuscript in section 2.
The reference list needs alignment formatting.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe abstract signifies the impact of media on wastewater treatment ". This increases capital and the associated construction costs of anaerobic wastewater treatment plants (WWTP)." However, there is no comparison of economic analysis where the authors claim can be justified in terms of ROI, IRR etc. It is suggested not to add supporting arguments in abstract which have not been reported in manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no more comments
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable review work
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere is no major change in revised version rather than changing few sentences in the abstract to avoid the basic comment to be addressed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
