Electrogenic Bacteria Enhance the Structure and Performance of Nitrite-Reducing Electroactive Biofilms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments are in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction:
line 30: Please clarify the difference between EAB and electrogenic bacteria

line 47: is there any reference proofing that the attachement on cathodes is impactes due to the negative charge?

Results & discussion:

line 216: in relation to what is the electroactivity relatively high? Please give some reference

Line 223: In my eyes the figure does not show a visible plateau phase for the -0.4 V bioelectrode

Line 262-264: this sentence is not clear - could you please elaborate

Line 279: as the protein content increases more than the removal rate - is there less removal per cell? please comment on that effect

Line 295-300: an explaning scheme/figure would help the understanding of the concept a lot.

line 326: is the difference between the 1500 mg and 500 mg biocathode significant?

line 355: It seems bold to conclude from the cell form to the function. FISH analyses would support the assumption.

Line 385: could you give the percentage of the change in biofilm thickness?

Figure 7: please provide a legend clarifying which part of the figure belongs to what axis

line 465-467: was there any positive control performed for strengthening this hypothesis? the decrease in Pseudomonas could also be due to handling

Figure 8: please add the characteristic conditions of the MECs somewhere. Otherwise its quite hard to correlate

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf