Review Reports
- Sabrina Ng Muhamad Ng1,2,
- Syazwani Idrus1,* and
- Amimul Ahsan3,4
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the file for the comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please find the attached amendment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript membranes-1221826 studied the separation performance of Hollow Fiber (HF) and Flat Sheet (FS) membranes in a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) process to treat the wastewater of a Food and Beverage (F&B) industry.
The results of this comparative study at pilot-scale are beneficial to membrane literature and I suggest publishing this work after addressing the following comments:
Major comment:
- Line 144, Table 1: I recommended the authors to enrich the data by adding more information regarding the properties of feed, properties of the membrane material, operating conditions, fouling performance, etc.
- Line 202, Table 5: What’s the rationale behind using HF and FS with large porosity difference, i.e., 0.4 microns and 0.08 microns? What is the authors' justification to have a fair comparison between the outcomes?
- Membrane characterization is needed, such as FESEM, Contact angle, FTIR, etc.
- Figure 5 and 7: Justification is needed for the larger variation of the influent COD and TSS for FS compared to HF
- Error bar or standard deviation number is needed for all the data.
Minor comments:
- Line 61: Avoid citing the same reference in a single sentence
- Line 70: Define MLSS in the introduction section
- The manuscript needs improvement in English in several lines. Some examples are
- Line 91, 98, 107-108, 119-120, 128-131.
- Line 145: Table caption should move to the top
- Figure 8, and 9: The caption should include both HF and FS
Author Response
Please find the attached amendment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
My comments can be seen in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Sir,
Please find the attached for your review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have properly and adequately addressed the comments given on the review process. The revised manuscript is improved in comparison with the original version. Therefore, I recommend this research for publication.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
Please find the attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf