Next Article in Journal
Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR): A Rampart against the Adverse Effects of Drought Stress
Previous Article in Journal
Trophic Positions of Sympatric Copepods across the Subpolar Front of the East Sea during Spring: A Stable Isotope Approach
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

pH-Based Control of Anaerobic Digestion to Maximise Ammonium Production in Liquid Digestate

Water 2023, 15(3), 417; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15030417
by Lonestar Gonde, Tristan Wickham, Hendrik Gideon Brink and Willie Nicol *
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Water 2023, 15(3), 417; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15030417
Submission received: 15 December 2022 / Revised: 11 January 2023 / Accepted: 17 January 2023 / Published: 19 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Topic Anaerobic Digestion Processes)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report


Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors set the stage to investigate the ammonia production rates in batch anaerobic digestion under different control pH control strategies. The pH of the AD was controlled at three different set points for three different substrates. This was achieved by using two different set-ups; the DDS and the CDS. Authors discovered that pH of 7 is the optimal set point for both ammonium release and gas production rate. In addition, CDS presents enhanced gas rates compared to DDS. This study seems interesting, but there are some issues that have to be addressed.

1) The authors tested three (3) only separate feeds for their experiments. Have the authors tested more than these 3 feeds? For example, banana peels only sample and/or a sample with the three substrates (banana, cow dung and lentils).

2) The sample 3 (lentils and cow dung) was tested only for the DDS method (Table 2).  Would not make a difference in ammonium concentration and gas production rate if CDS method is used?

3) The NaOH amount, the ammonium concentration and gas concentration are quantified (Fig. 8-10)? An average value should be given for these metrics in order the authors to have a fair comparison between DDS and CDS methods (use of a table). 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 English language and References are fine/minor spell check required

Reviewer 2 Report

-

Back to TopTop