Respiratory and Enteric Bacterial Pathogens in Municipal Wastewater: A Potential Risk of Infection to Workers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The objective of the research as pathogen analysis, realised in detail, but no connection to the introduced information on worker health protection. There are only a few sentences of suggestions, without any indication of research and discussion. 

 

 

The authors conducted a detailed analysis of four key pathogens (Legionella pneumophila, Mycobacterium spp., Arcobacter butzleri, Aeromonas hydrophila) found at different stages of wastewater treatment. Molecular methods (qPCR) were used, which are very accurate and allow the precise determination of pathogen gene levels.

The article focuses on the presence of pathogens, but does not analyse in detail the likelihood of actual infections or their impact on workers' health. The results are very limited. The authors describe a case study of 5 different WWTPs. 

The whole manuscript seems to lack scope and focus, if risk is to be assessed, there is poor description of risk assessment and health effects.

The study lacks direct references to existing standards and regulations for the protection of workers from biological hazards. E.g. directives in EU or national law. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Respected Editor

I am submitting my evaluation of the publication entitled "Respiratory and Enteric Bacterial Pathogens in Municipal Wastewater: A Potential Risk of Infection to Workers." The book delineates a substantial investigation of bacterial pathogens in municipal wastewater, a vital issue for occupational health. The paper tackles a significant subject and has the capacity to make a substantial contribution to the domains of environmental microbiology and occupational health. I am certain that the proposed amendments would augment its quality and pertinence.

The research examines a significant occupational health issue by studying bacterial pathogens in wastewater, which is pertinent and consequential. The use of qPCR for pathogen quantification is suitable; nevertheless, the difficulties in differentiating viable from nonviable cells need further focus. The paper provides novel data on Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 in wastewater, addressing a significant research need. The work is proficiently written; yet, some portions might benefit from more conciseness and logical coherence.

I have some comments

1.      The author should elucidate the knowledge gap addressed in the research inside the Introduction to augment the reader's comprehension of its distinctiveness.

2.      Within the Materials Justify the use of grab samples over composite samples, despite the latter's potential for yielding more representative data.

3.      The limits of qPCR concerning PCR inhibitors were noted, although particular mitigation measures may be further detailed.

4.      The presentation of statistical data, such as p-values, is lucid; nevertheless, more explicit comparisons between sites could be emphasized in the text to enhance interpretability.

5.      Graphs provide information; nevertheless, labels and legends should be streamlined for enhanced clarity.

6.      Elaborate on how the results correlate with other worldwide research, specifically on pathogen concentrations and associated hazards.

7.      Emphasize the practical ramifications for wastewater treatment methodologies and occupational safety protocols.

8.      The results might provide more comprehensive suggestions for improvements in wastewater treatment and worker safety.

9.      Propose prospective study avenues, particularly with viruses and protozoa in wastewater.

10.  The six-month research duration and twelve time points may constrain the investigation of seasonal change; it is advisable to acknowledge this openly.

11.  Enhance resolution and streamline axis for improved clarity in Figures 1 and 2.

 

12.   Table 1 should include further site-specific information, including discrepancies in effluent treatment procedures.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The significantly improved version has been prepared, and suggestions have been addressed. Nevertheless, I believe that the reference to the law in comment 5 should be discussed on a broader scale.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing all the comments provided in the first round of review. I appreciate the effort you have put into revising the manuscript, ensuring that the suggestions were carefully considered and incorporated.

After reviewing the revised version, I am pleased to confirm that the changes made are satisfactory and align with the feedback provided. I recommend accepting the article