Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The proposed paper concerns the re-use of watewaters for vineyard irrigation, facing the problem of conventional water scarcity in several parts of the world.

The paper is well set and generally well written, although I suggest to pay attention to some misprint derived from the format (lines 165-179, and 314-316). Apart this, it could be accepted with a minor revision, as following.

- If the nutrients are in the ion form, they should appear with their own charge both in the tables and in the text; some times they have it and some other times not; I am very confident that at least in table 1 they should have a charge.

- Table 1: please, substitute "," with "." to separate units from decimals

- Table 2: I would substitute "N" with "TKN"; then "nitric N" with "NO3-" considering it is expressed as ppm, and for the same reason "P" could be "PO4-P", in other words "phosphorous as phosphates"? I am not expert of Spectrophotometry Atomic absorption, but I think that starting from "Assimilable K" until the end of the tables all elements are always in the form of ion, in this case the charge should be added. Finally, in the same table there is still some word in spanish regarding some methodology.

- Line 362-369: fix the format problem

Author Response

The authors are grateful for the reviewer's comments and suggestions.
They undoubtedly help to improve the paper's quality.
We have implemented the majority of the suggested changes. However, if the reviewer believes that any additional changes are required, we are willing to revise it.
Greetings, and we hope that the changes we made are acceptable to you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study aimed on nutrient content of vineyard leaves after prolonged treated wastewater irrigation. It is an interesting study with useful purpose. There are some suggestions to improve this study.

 

1.      Please add the novelty of this study in the abstract and introduction.

2.      Please make a comparison of advantages and limitations between this study and available published studies, as shown as a table (recommended) in the results and discussions.

3.     What are the limitations or gaps of this study? Based on these limitations what are the possible resolutions?

Author Response

The authors are grateful for the reviewer's comments and suggestions.
They undoubtedly help to improve the paper's quality.
We have implemented the majority of the suggested changes. However, if the reviewer believes that any additional changes are required, we are willing to revise it.
Greetings, and we hope that the changes we made are acceptable to you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

this is a very interesting study investigating the effect of treated wastewater irrigation on vineyard and its foliar nutrient content. Experimentation and results are engrossing and groundbreaking. 

Although, manuscript should be read by a fluent English speaker to correct some inaccuracies in meaning. For better reading experience and specific research interests, some parts need to be improved. Major revision is recommended for acceptance.

Here are my specific comments:

1.      Introduction is incomplete in literature review. There are few references to research papers dealing with irrigation with treated wastewater. It needs to be enriched, especially with state of the art work.

2.      Page 2, line 70: Replace the phrase ‘of particular interest’ with ‘of particular concern’.

3.      Page 3, lines 11-113: What kind of waste water does the plant treat? Give more details.

4.      Page 3, line 125: Replace the word ‘studies’ with the word ‘studied’.

5.      Page 3, line 125: Do you mean ‘wine and trellises’?

6.      Page 3, line 134: Be careful with units of measure and superscripts THROUGHOUT THE MANUSCRIPT.

7.      Page 3, lines 139-140: Be careful with oxidation numbers, subscripts, and superscripts of the chemical forms THROUGHOUT THE MANUSCRIPT.

8.      Page 4, line 154: Which type of chlorophyll do you refer to? Chlorophyll-a?

9.      Page 4, line 163: Correct: p<0.05.

10.  Page 4, lines 165-179: Please delete these paragraphs.

11.  Page 4, line 183: Average values of water results analysis. Replace.

12.  Page 5, Table 1: Please replace: METHODOLOGY, Potentiometry, Complexometry…

13.  References for water and soil samples analysis are required, not only namely in the table.

14.  Page 6, lines 231-234: Pay attention to the syntax and structure of the sentence.

15.  Page 6, Table 2: When you mention ‘assimilable’ what do you mean? Exchangable or/and water-soluble? And which is the method you carry out? Please also replace ‘Espectrofotometria Emision atomica’ and ‘Espetrofotometria UV/VIS’ with Englsh.

16.  Page 7, Table 3: Did you measure Mg, Ca, Na, Fe, Mn, Cu and Zn with atomic emission or with atomic absorption???

17.  Page 7, lines 263-264: Pay attention to the syntax and structure of the sentence.

18.  Page 11, lines 314-316: Please delete this paragraph.

19.  Page 11, line 327: Be careful with the brackets.

20.  Page 14, Conclusions: The same things are repeated, please rewrite this paragraph more carefully.

 

21.  Please consider the paper ‘Utilization of biobed for the efficient treatment of olive oil mill wastewater’.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors are grateful for the reviewer's comments and suggestions.
They undoubtedly help to improve the paper's quality.
We have implemented the majority of the suggested changes. However, if the reviewer believes that any additional changes are required, we are willing to revise it.
Greetings, and we hope that the changes we made are acceptable to you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx