Full-Scale Processing by Anaerobic Baffle Reactor, Sequencing Batch Reactor, and Sand Filter for Treating High-Salinity Wastewater from Offshore Oil Rigs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript focuses on the analysis of the starting-up and steady running phases of a full scale plant for treating high-salinity wastewater from offshore oil rigs.
The work is of interest for researchers/technologists working in the field of wastewater and, more generally, environmental management. The rationale is well explained in the Introduction, references are correctly cited, data collection is logically designed, results are well presented and interpreted. I think that this article could be published in Processes. There are a few minor points that need to be fixed before the manuscript could be published.
In details:
- In Table 1 physico-chemical parameters of wastewater are listed along with composition. This has to be specified in both the text and the caption. Moreover, in the caption (or as table footnote) the meaning of the listed parameters should be indicated.
- In Figure 2 an arrow should indicate the fate of treated water.
- The last part of the introduction sounds like a short abstract. This part should be limited to the presentation of the experimental strategy set up for the study.
- lines 156-157: please quote the uncertainty on the reported values which, in my opinion, are quoted with too many significant figures.
- The Conclusions section appears as a short summary of the work. It should be completely re-thought and re-written in order to clearly state the advancements this work brings with respect to previous studies, thus clearly stating a take-home message.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your useful comments on the structure of our manuscript. We have modified the manuscript accordingly (in red text), and have included detailed responses to each comment (including additional review comments), as listed below.
Point 1: In Table 1 physico-chemical parameters of wastewater are listed along with composition. This has to be specified in both the text and the caption. Moreover, in the caption (or as table footnote) the meaning of the listed parameters should be indicated.
Response 1: We have modified Table 1 according. (in red)
Point 2: In Figure 2 an arrow should indicate the fate of treated water.
Response 2: We have modified Figure 2 according. (in red)
Point 3: The last part of the introduction sounds like a short abstract. This part should be limited to the presentation of the experimental strategy set up for the study.
Response 3: We have rewritten the last part of the introduction. accordingly (in red)
Point 4: lines 156-157: please quote the uncertainty on the reported values which, in my opinion, are quoted with too many significant figures.
Response 4: We have modified as “was 67.6 mg/L with COD removal rates of 65%.” accordingly. (in red)
Point 5: The Conclusions section appears as a short summary of the work. It should be completely re-thought and re-written in order to clearly state the advancements this work brings with respect to previous studies, thus clearly stating a take-home message.
Response 5: We have modified accordingly. (in red)
Reviewer 2 Report
This work deals with the "full scale" wastewater treatment from offshore oil rigs. The process is a combination of anaerobic baffle reactor - SBR and sand filters. The subject of the work is inside the "environmental - chemical process engineering" and therefore inside the scope of the journal
The work is interesting and after some modifications can be published in processes
some points:
introduction "As a first step, physical treatment methods including electrical units" what the authors mean "electrical units."
Why in fig 3 and four there is a gap between 6-9 day? Problem with the measurements?
Table 2. It would be good if the autos can add another column to provide us the total % reduction of each parameter ( COD SS etc.) from influent to effluent using ABR-SBR in order to see clear the efficiency of the process in the "steady running period."
Running cost: This is an interesting paragraph especially for this journal. However, the authors must add more information for the calculations. For example, Electricity expenses the percentages of the equipment, the total watt-hours and the cost of the energy in order to calculate the final cost. Maybe it would be useful for the readers to provide also a table.
Also please provide us a price in euro or $$ since the journal is international. It would be good to provide also a cost estimation per m3/ treated wastewater
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your useful comments on the structure of our manuscript. We have modified the manuscript accordingly (in red text), and have included detailed responses to each comment (including additional review comments), as listed below.
Point 1: introduction "As a first step, physical treatment methods including electrical units" what the authors mean "electrical units."
Response 1: We have modified as “electrolysis”. (in red)
Point 2: Why in fig 3 and four there is a gap between 6-9 day? Problem with the measurements?
Response 2: We have explained as “On days 6–9, no samples were collected due to the effect of typhon. Therefore, there is a gap between days 6-9.”. (in red)
Point 3: Table 2. It would be good if the autos can add another column to provide us the total % reduction of each parameter ( COD SS etc.) from influent to effluent using ABR-SBR in order to see clear the efficiency of the process in the "steady running period."
Response 3: We have added the column for “average removal rate” accordingly (in red)
Point 4: Running cost: This is an interesting paragraph especially for this journal. However, the authors must add more information for the calculations. For example, Electricity expenses the percentages of the equipment, the total watt-hours and the cost of the energy in order to calculate the final cost. Maybe it would be useful for the readers to provide also a table.
Response 4: We have added the information for electricity expenses and chemical regents expenses accordingly. (in red)
Point 5: Also please provide us a price in euro or $$ since the journal is international. It would be good to provide also a cost estimation per m3/ treated wastewater
Response 5: We have modified accordingly. (in red)
