Implications of Bacterial Adaptation to Phenol Degradation under Suboptimal Culture Conditions Involving Stenotrophomonas maltophilia KB2 and Pseudomonas moorei KB4

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The authors should explain in the background the potential environmental settings that are close to the suboptimal experimental conditions. 

2. The equation in line 161 is not complete.

3. The figure resolution should be improved. They look opaque.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very grateful for the critical and constructive comments on our manuscript. All your comments were taken into consideration and the previous version of our manuscript was revised. We hope that rewritten and improved manuscript, according to the Reviewers' remarks, is more understandable and presents better quality. Unnecessary passages from the manuscript have been removed, while all new corrections and added information are marked in red.

Yours Faithfully,

Agnieszka Nowak, Daniel Wasilkowski and Agnieszka Mrozik

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present a paper on the growth and degradation potential of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia KB2 and Pseudomonas moorei KB4 strains toward phenol, under suboptimal temperatures, pH and salinity. The topic is well introduced, the experimental plan is effective and results are interesting. Moreover, the manuscript is well written. I think that the paper deserves publication. On the other hand, it needs few improvements Please consider the following comments:

-          Introduction Line 112. To be more convincing, I suggest to use “it was worth” instead of “it seemed worth”

-          Materials and methods. How experiments were conducted? Please, describe the culture system (working volume, culture medium etc…)

-          Material and methods Why did you choose the phenol concentration of 300 mg/L? Is it comparable with the concentration detected in phenol-rich effluents/environments?

-          Materials and methods. According to literature, which is the effect of suboptimal conditions? A partial inhibition? I suggest to add this information.

-          Results. I suggest to place Figures and Tables just below the text where they are mentioned

-          Results. In Tables, I suggest to use “experiment” instead of “symbol of treatment”

-          Discussion The discussion looks like one huge chapter without highlighting the most important points. This section should be structured into sub-sections to follow on the discussion easily.

-          Discussion. Indicate the direction of future research

-          Discussion. Aside from the selection of pure strains to degrade phenols, I suggest to mention (as a future research direction) the importance of open mixed culture processes. For instance, open mixed fermentations have been used to treat phenolic-rich wastewater for energy production purposes:

DOI:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.10.028

DOI:10.1016/j.jbiotec.2019.09.009

However, such research direction needs more investigations and it is worth mentioning it.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very grateful for the critical and constructive comments on our manuscript. All your comments were taken into consideration and the previous version of our manuscript was revised. We hope that rewritten and improved manuscript, according to Reviewers' remarks, is more understandable and presents better quality. Unnecessary passages from the manuscript have been removed, while all new corrections and added information are marked in red.

Yours Faithfully,

Agnieszka Nowak, Daniel Wasilkowski and Agnieszka Mrozik

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article water-1881002 presented important results on the degradation of phenol by two species of bacteria. However, some aspects of the methodology were omitted, while others need to be revised. Questions are in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very grateful for the critical and constructive comments on our manuscript. All your comments were taken into consideration and the previous version of our manuscript was revised. We hope that rewritten and improved manuscript, according to Reviewers' remarks, is more understandable and presents better quality. Unnecessary passages from the manuscript have been removed, while all new corrections and added information are marked in red.

Yours Faithfully,

Agnieszka Nowak, Daniel Wasilkowski and Agnieszka Mrozik

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The article water-1881002 presented improvements, but some aspects questioned in the first review were not answered. For example, I had suggested that the enzyme activity should be reported in IU/mL and not IU/mg of protein, as the analytical method used suffers interference from phenols. Other questions I asked should be answered in the text and not in the answer to my review.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very grateful for the critical and constructive comments on our manuscript. All your comments were considered, and the previous version of our manuscript was revised. According to your remarks, we hope that the rewritten and improved manuscript is more understandable and presents better quality. Unnecessary passages from the manuscript have been removed, while all new corrections and added information are marked in red.

Yours Faithfully,

Agnieszka Nowak, Daniel Wasilkowski and Agnieszka Mrozik

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf