Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

/

Author Response

Dear the Reviewer

Thank you for your kind consideration. The manuscript has been extensively checked for grammatical errors and necessary revisions were made.  

Best regards,

Jenyuk Lohwacharin

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

a) Is it possible to apply this on pilot scale and will it cost effective ?

b) Author should explain the figure 2 and more clear image will help to understand better. 

c) Did author check ferrihydrite-impregnated powdered activated carbon for other contaminants ? Especially microbial contaminants and heavy metals?

d) Author should include more diverse results not just phosphate. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion it is an interesting manuscript. The paper results are clear and quite interesting.  The “Introduction” section is well written

Having  familiarised  myse lf with the manuscript, I have sugestion:

 

In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. (see instruction for authors)

 

 

fig 8.

A fig is constructed of two parts, a rectangle and  whiskers. 

The whiskers can represent f.a the minimum and maximum of all of the data

one standard deviation above and below the mean of the data

explain what the whiskers shows?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept.