Next Article in Journal
Mapping the Pollution Plume Using the Self-Potential Geophysical Method: Case of Oum Azza Landfill, Rabat, Morocco
Previous Article in Journal
Porosity Models for Large-Scale Urban Flood Modelling: A Review
Article
Peer-Review Record

Evaluation of the Performance and Quality of Wastewater Treated by M’zar Plant in Agadir, Morocco

Water 2021, 13(7), 954; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13070954
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2021, 13(7), 954; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13070954
Received: 28 February 2021 / Revised: 26 March 2021 / Accepted: 29 March 2021 / Published: 31 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Wastewater Treatment and Reuse)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attached review file.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions. you will find attached the answers to the remarks and questions suggested

(the reviewer’s comments are in italics, the changes and additions to the manuscript are clearly highlighted in yellow in this response and using the Microsoft Word Track Changes function in the manuscript )

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study the authors evaluated the performance and quality of wastewater treated by M’zar Plant in Agadir, Morocco. The overall quality of the manuscript is nice. I would recommend some minor changes before publications:

1- The conclusions section should include:

-A summary of the current plant purification efficiency compared with the  efficiency of similar plants specially that the M’zar Plant is working for more than 18 years.

-Your vision for future improvements required for the plant.

2-References section

-Many references are given in French. I would recommend to update the references using English sources. In addition many references links are not working. 

Author Response

We would like to thank you for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions. you will find attached the answers to the remarks and questions suggested

(the reviewer’s comments are in italics, the changes and additions to the manuscript are clearly highlighted in yellow in this response and using the Microsoft Word Track Changes function in the manuscript )

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised manuscript shows a significant improvement in comparison with the original submission and in my opinion, can be accepted for publication.

Back to TopTop