Intermittent Microaeration Technology to Enhance the Carbon Source Release of Particulate Organic Matter in Domestic Sewage
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Intermittent microaeration technology to enhance the release of POM carbon source in domestic sewage
This study aims to find out the mechanism of intermittent microaeration in the pro- cess of enhancing the POM carbon source release. By combining the reactor performance and microbial community analyses, new insights on intermittent microaeration-enhanced POM carbon source release and suggestions for future promotion and application are pro- vided.
Overall the scope and content are good. Please address the following concerns
Avoid using abbreviation in title “POM”. Full description is required
Abstract should be able to stand alone, methodology description in abstract should be further enhanced
Section 2.1, provide source or justification for the selected operational conditions
Table 1, provide full term before presenting abbreviation for the first time
And provide full characteristics of the collected wastewater.
Waste water characteristics better to be presented at results and discussion part.
Its critical and important to justify the selection of experimental condition which selected without any support or ref.
Section 3, should be change to results and discussions
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript concerns an interesting issue which is the application of intermittent microaeration to strengthen the carbon source release of particulate organic matter in domestic sewage. In my opinion, the research presented in the manuscript could be of interest to readers of the Water because domestic sewage treatment plants are becoming more and more popular.
The manuscript is written clearly but the authors did not take care of refining the details. The results are presented in a comprehensible way. The figures present essential data. However, there are points which need to be clarified or improved.
- The Introduction section was described too briefly. Please, improve the Introduction.
- The authors did not mention of replicates of the experiment. How many times did the authors repeat the experiment? How do we know that the authors observed the correct effect and the result obtained is not a random fluctuation due to the complexity of the experiment?
- How many samples from each group were subjected to microbiological analysis?
- The authors mentioned that “mixed liquor suspended solids and MLVSS were regularly measured”, however, the results of these analyses are not reported in the manuscript.
- The authors do not define abbreviations (e.g. MLVSS, VFAs, PAO, STN). Please define abbreviations.
- There is no consistency in the abbreviation of the term soluble chemical oxygen demand. In line 14 the authors use the abbreviation SCOD and in line 48 COD. Please unify the abbreviation.
- Different spellings ("microaeration" and "micro-aeration") for the same term were used. Please unify the spelling.
- In Figure 5 "time" is not written in English.
- Lines 9 and 10: "uneconomical" is written twice.
- Line 130: please use the subscript in the formula of NH3.
- Line 144: HPO42− is written twice.
- References cited in the text (24 and 25) are not included in the reference list.
- References present in the reference list (12, 13, 18, 23) are not cited in the text.
- There is no consistency in the preparation of the references (e.g. sometimes the abbreviated journal name is used, and other times the full journal name is used). Please improve the references.
Overall, the manuscript presents quite interesting results but needs to be improved before publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript “Intermittent microaeration technology to enhance the release of POM carbon source in domestic sewage” is an interesting work. It is describing the the mechanism of intermittent microaeration in the process of enhancing the POM carbon source release. From the results, it is appearing that the Intermittent microaeration can effectively promote the hydrolysis efficiency of particulate organic matter, with increased protein, polysaccharide, SCOD, and inhibiting the consumption of acetic acid. This work could considered for publication and prove to be more interesting if the authors made the following modifications.
1. Please write the full name of POM in the title (particulate organic matter). I recommend the authors to reconsider the title.
2. Abstract should be revise contains main objective and novelty of this work. I suggest the authors to rewrite the abstract with a focus on background, objectives, main findings and conclusion. Please add a sentence which shows the necessity of the study
3. The introduction cannot clarify the necessity and the importance of the study. The knowledge gap should be explained first and then the novelty of the work could be highlighted. Introduction part should be improved by including highly relevant study reported in this field. Please follow the literature review with a clear and concise state of the art analysis.
4. There are many problems with English grammar, writing and formatting, so language should be polished throughout the manuscript carefully. In the abstract uneconomical was written twice.
5. The quality of figures and figure captions should be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Th revised article is acceptable.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been revised, and the changes and corrections made by the Authors are acceptable. The explanations provided by the Authors are satisfacroty.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have significantly improved the manuscript. As a result, I believe it is now suitable for publication.
