Onsite Wastewater Treatment Upgrade for Water Reuse in Cooling Towers and Toilets

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Main question addressed by the research: The work addresses the wastewater reuse to replace losses from cooling towers and toilets.
Originality and relevance of the topic: The topic is relevant to the field and it considers a suitable model (research gap).
Added value of the paper:  The manuscript takes into account the study of the implementation of nine steps for the treatment, however the main purpose of it is not clearly stated. However the paper should include clearly why they are analysing those and the initial conditions with ranges. Maybe a summary table would be useful.

Quality of tables: Typos in table sshould be checked such as in Table 1 with "Inputs".

Spelling mistakes should be checked in all the paper.
Specific improvements for the paper to be considered:

1. There is lack of details in the methodology section. What are the initial conditions or range for the parameters? Why those parameters? More details should be provided. For example Jar tests should be explained in Methodology.
2. Discussion is too short for such a complex treatment with nine steps. More critical discussion of key findings needed.
3. The conclusions are missing.

Author Response

Main question addressed by the research: The work addresses the wastewater reuse to replace losses from cooling towers and toilets.
Originality and relevance of the topic: The topic is relevant to the field and it considers a suitable model (research gap).

> We thank the Reviewer for her/his constructive criticism. We have now addressed all the raised issues and believe our manuscript has been substantially improved. Please find below our detailed responses.

Added value of the paper:  The manuscript takes into account the study of the implementation of nine steps for the treatment, however the main purpose of it is not clearly stated. However, the paper should include clearly why they are analysing those and the initial conditions with ranges. Maybe a summary table would be useful.

> To clarify this point, we included in the end of introduction (from line 103 to 107) the main point evaluated and discussed in this paper. In addition, we include a statement (Lines 201-205) justifying the use of such parameters to evaluate the system efficiency and we included in the methodology (lines 116-123) and legend of the figure 01 (lines 136-140) an explanation about the steps used to wastewater treatment.

 

Quality of tables: Types in table should be checked such as in Table 1 with "Inputs". Spelling mistakes should be checked in all the paper.

>The manuscript was revised, and spelling mistakes and the manuscript checked by a native English-speaking colleague.

Specific improvements for the paper to be considered:

1. There is lack of details in the methodology section. What are the initial conditions or range for the parameters? Why those parameters? More details should be provided. For example Jar tests should be explained in Methodology.

• Lines 116-123 and lines 136-140: We included in the methodology and legend of the figure 01 an explanation about the steps used to wastewater treatment.
• Lines 144-150: We justify and included a better explanation about the Jar tests methodology.
• Lines 201-205: A better explanation about “why these parameters were used” was included to justify this analysis.

 

1. Discussion is too short for such a complex treatment with nine steps. More critical discussion of key findings needed.

• Lines 346-351 and Lines 384-393: We included a critical discussion and a better discussion about the steps used in the wastewater treatment.

 

 

1. The conclusions are missing.

• Lines 400-413: Conclusions were included

 

Best Regards,

 

Welington Luiz de Araújo

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

I read your manuscript with a great interest. 

Please, answer and clarify the following comments.

1.Introduction

The first sentence is general. You need to add further clarification. I recommend the following 

references: Powder Technology 366, 629-640, 2020, 

Environmental Science: Nano 8 (4), 950-959, 2021

2.Could you please clarify the method of preparing an aqueous solution with different simulated COD

?! 

3. Table 1, what is meant by Imput?! Do you mean input?! 

4. Conclusion  is missing. Please, add conclusion section. 

5.  Why did you focus on measuring conductivity only in Table 1?! What about other parameters?! 

Author Response

Response to reviewer #2

 

I read your manuscript with a great interest. Please, answer and clarify the following comments.

> We thank the Reviewer for her/his constructive criticism. We have now addressed all the raised issues and believe our manuscript has been substantially improved. Please find below our detailed responses.

 

1.Introduction: The first sentence is general. You need to add further clarification. I recommend the following references: Powder Technology 366, 629-640, 2020, Environmental Science: Nano 8 (4), 950-959, 2021

• Lines 38-48 and lines 103-107: The introduction was improved and the suggested references added.

2.Could you please clarify the method of preparing an aqueous solution with different simulated COD. 

• Line 205-209: A better explanation about preparing an aqueous solution with different simulated COD was added

3. Table 1, what is meant by Imput?! Do you mean input?

• this mistake was fixed

4. Conclusion is missing. Please, add conclusion section. 

• Lines 400-413: Conclusions were included

 

5. Why did you focus on measuring conductivity only in Table 1?! What about other parameters?

• Lines 157-160; A explanation about the focus on measuring conductivity was included.
• Lines 201-205: A better explanation about “why these parameters were used” was included to justify this analysis.

 

Best Regards,

 

Welington Luiz de Araújo

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Discussion should compare more values within the results. For example the nitrates.
2. The conclusions are still too short and they should summarize more the main findings. What about nitrates? And other important components?

Author Response

Main question addressed by the research: The work addresses the wastewater reuse to replace losses from cooling towers and toilets.

> We thank the Reviewer for her/his constructive criticism. We have revised the manuscript and changes (highlighted in the manuscript) were done according to reviewer’s comments.

 

Introduction

• Lines 41-61: We provide some more background and include more relevant references in the context of the study

 

Materials and methods

• Lines 149-151 and lines 174-175: We indicated how the analysis were performed

 

Results and Discussion

• Lines 339-341, lines 345-350 and lines 401-417: The results and discussion was improved, including some relevant references and comparison.

Conclusions

• Lines 454-474: The conclusions were completely rewrite according to the objectives and obtained results.

 

Best Regards,

 

Welington Luiz de Araújo

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your revised manuscript. It is much better now. Therefore, I agree to publish this manuscript but after clarifying the following point in detail as your answer is not sufficient. 

• Line 205-209: A better explanation about preparing an aqueous solution with different simulated COD was added

Please, add the methodology for preparing simulated COD solution in the lab. 

 

Author Response

Main question addressed by the research: The work addresses the wastewater reuse to replace losses from cooling towers and toilets.

> We thank the Reviewer for her/his constructive criticism. We have revised the manuscript and changes (highlighted in the manuscript) were done according to reviewer’s comments.

 

Materials and methods

• Lines 149-151 and lines 174-175: We indicated how the analysis were performed

 

Please, add the methodology for preparing simulated COD solution in the lab. 

• Lines 231-239: We provide more details about the methodology, including the concentrations of simulated COD solution, used to build the calibration curve.

 

Conclusions

• Lines 454-474: The conclusions were completely rewrite according to the objectives and obtained results.

 

Best Regards,

 

Welington Luiz de Araújo

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf