Motion Adsorption Characteristics of Particulate Matter in Water Supply Network
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion, the article deals with an important aspects of water quality. It was written in an interesting and clear way
Author Response
Thank you very much for your recognition，have a nice day.
Reviewer 2 Report
[Water] Manuscript ID: water-1946500– Review
General comments
This paper “Motion adsorption characteristics of particulate matter in water supply network” by Zhao Zhiling, Wang Lu, Shi Wenhang, Li Cong and Wei Guozijian, is focused on the investigation of the quantity and distribution of suspended particles alongside pipes based on field experiments in a water supply using effluents from both conventional and deep treatment under different velocity. The overall aim is to test the quality of water from the perspective of particulate matter. Specifically, the authors combined experimental study and theoretical analysis to explore particulate matter in the water distribution system characteristics.
The paper is interesting and fits the scope of this journal. However, there are some points which should be addressed to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript. An improved revised manuscript would address the following major and minor comments / suggestions.
Major Comments
The manuscript needs improvement regarding the structure of the sentences. Thus, proof-reading of the manuscript is recommended as there are several grammatical / spelling mistakes. The authors should check the English language in the manuscript beyond these comments (for example Lines 340-342).
Materials and Methods
- Lines 89-94 The sentences don’t read well. They need to be re-written with correct English grammar.
- Lines 127-128: The authors need to report the companies from which they purchased the chemicals for their experiments.
- Figure 1. The authors need to extend the title of the figure so that the authors know what the test device is used for.
- What is the velocity range tested? The authors discuss about different velocities but they don’t report what are the values of velocities tested except from the last Figure (except for section 3.4). The authors should define the flow regime under which experiments conducted and discuss about the velocity part in text in the paper. They refer to a range of 0.3 to 1.3 m/s. Why the chose this range? They also need to cite papers that are relevant to the effect of flow velocity in water distribution systems like:
Prest, E.I.; Schaap, P.G.; Besmer, M.D.; Hammes, F. Dynamic Hydraulics in a Drinking Water Distribution System Influence Suspended Particles and Turbidity, But Not Microbiology. Water 2021, 13, 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/w1301 0109
Tsagkari, E., Connelly, S., Liu, Z. et al. The role of shear dynamics in biofilm formation. npj Biofilms Microbiomes 8, 33 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41522-022-00300-4
Figures
Figure 4: How the images where obtained with the electron microscope? Please give details regarding lens etc.
Figures’ (5-14) individual titles do not read well. They would be better like this:
Concentration of …(write the chemicals) versus Time.
Concentration of …(write the chemicals) versus Velocity.
Results
Lines 194-198. The sentences need to be restructured. The authors do continuously throughout the paper the same grammar mistakes.
Conclusion
There is a huge sentence in the Conclusion that is impossible for the reader to follow. The authors need to break down this sentence to a few smaller ones (Lines 349-356). This sentence needs to be rephrased as it makes no sense (373-375).
References
The authors need to increase the number of publications they have cited to support their study. The overall number of references is very low. For example, the Introduction section should be re-structured so that more information on previous research is available and gaps in knowledge are clearly described supporting the aim of this paper and proving its novelty.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments， the manuscript has been revised, please check.
Hope you have a great day，
Dr Zhao
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has a good structure and the language is used appropriately.
The experiments are clearly described. the entire paper describes a sound engineering process. It is not clear which are the results beyond the state of the art.
However, it would be good to describe more detailed the mathematical background of the various functions represented in the picture.
From the scientific point of view, it would be good to describe the entire measurement system, to explain what sensors were used and to comment on the precision of the different components that were used.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments， the manuscript has been revised, please check.
Hope you have a great day，
Dr Zhao
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
thanks for your contribution firstly.
The paper provides a study in which the quantity and distribution of suspended particles alongside the pipes was investigated based on field experiments in a water supply plant located in Zhengzhou City of Henan Province.
The abstract briefly summarizes the purpose of the paper and overall the article is well structured.
At the end of the introductory paragraph, I suggest that you better highlight the scientific novelty of your study. Even if the aim of the study is well explained it is important to highlight what the additional / new contribution to the research is. It would be useful, as well as interesting, to insert at least one introductory paragraph that deals with the efforts made by research to improve water quality, not only strictly related to your study type but in general. To this end, I suggest the inclusion of the following studies that could give to value the problem treated in your study (doi: 10.3390 / s20123432, https: // doi.org/10.3390/w13070934 , https://doi.org/10.3390/w14172707); in fact, they deal with the strategic positioning of the quality sensors not only in the water distribution system buy also in the urban drainage system, to give an overview of the importance of the study of the water quality in entire system.
In conclusion, I believe that the paper includes solid content, but some aspects need to be improved, improving them this manuscript can have its own value and impact.
I hope that these recommendations are helpful to the authors and wish good luck for the further reviewing process.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments， the manuscript has been revised, please check.
Hope you have a great day，
Dr Zhao
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors did not address the comments of the reviewer. The Reviewer thinks that still extensive editing of English language and style is required.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
according to your requirements, I have made modifications to the article, which are as follows:
1, Modified some grammar and language;
2, In order to simulate the real particulate matter situation in the pipe network as much as possible, the particulate matter we used was taken from the old pipe, and no other drugs were purchased;
3, The title of Figure 1 has been changed: “Diagram of test device about dynamic simulation of particle adsorption at different flow rates”;
4, Add a description of the speed range:” According to the water supply standard, when the pipe diameter is 25~40mm, the flow rate in the pipe≤1.2m/s. Since the diameter of the water supply pipe in this study is 25mm, and considering the stagnant water flow, the study flow rate is 0.3~1.3m /s. “;
5, SEM images are sent samples for testing, and we cannot provide relevant parameter information;
6, The title of Figure 5- 14 has been modified, such as:” In UF water the effects of suspended particulate matter at different time adsorption and release of Cu and Cd (a); Zn (b)”; “ Effects of suspended particulate matter at different velocity adsorption and release in DN25 tube of Pb and Fe (a); Al and As (b); Mn and Ca (c), Mg and Cr (d)”;
7, The introduction has added relevant innovative explanations
Reviewer 4 Report
The recommendations were carried out. In my opinion, the newspaper is ready for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your recognition and have a good life.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The Reviewer is happy from the authors reply.
