Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Although the abbreviations are explained in the main text, it would improve readability if footnotes were added to the table to clarify the meaning of FW, DW, and LA.

2. In Figure 1, the control is labeled as “C,” whereas in other figures and tables, the controls are labeled as “H.” For consistency, the notation should be standardized throughout the manuscript.

3. If possible, an image illustrating the differences among Control, TWW1, TWW2, TWW1-DH, and TWW2-DH would enhance the clarity and impact of the results. 

4. Have the authors conducted any testing for pathogens in TWW1, TWW2, and the Control? Given that wastewater may contain pathogens, such information would strengthen the manuscript.

Author Response

Please find the reply in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Brief summary

Very interesting manuscript that addresses the use of reclaimed water in hydroponic rocket cultivation. It presents a clear and concise introduction. Material and methods are sufficient to understand the experimental design, the determinations necessary to achieve the objectives and their implication in meeting the estimated needs of dietary intake and the potential health risks associated with their consumption. The statistical treatment is adequate. Results are presented in an orderly and coherent manner; however, the results Tables could be improved to facilitate the reading of the manuscript. Although a full and clear discussion of the results is presented, the conclusions should avoid repetition of the results and respond exclusively to the hypothesis and objectives of the study.

General concept comments

Tables 4, 5 and 6 could be simplified by eliminating the standard deviation. The average values are justified in their significance by the letters that follow them, and the standard deviation is not used either in the description of the results or in the discussion, so it can be considered as superfluous and unnecessary information that makes the manuscript difficult to read. Conversely, references to deviations can be maintained in all references to the mean values presented in results and discussion, if they serve to make sense to data. Although it is not strictly necessary, the letters of significance could also be eliminated when there are no differences in the Tukey-Kramer analysis in both Tables and Figures. Figures 1, 2 and 3 could be clarified by removing the letters in cases where there are no differences for the parameters analyzed.

The GI and I values in Table 3 are represented as a percentage, so the number of decimals presented for the average value can be reduced (or eliminated). The same can be applied to the percentage values presented in Table 7 for % RDI and % AI.

Specific comments

Lines 106 to 112. At the end of the introduction, the working hypothesis should be specified before presenting the objectives of the study.

Line 156: Why is the phytotoxicity test not performed on the fertigation solutions used in the experiment (TWW1DH and TWW2DH), which are the ones used in the culture conditions?

Lines 344, 358 and 396. (Tables 4, 5 and 6). Why were the two collections analysed separately? Are they statistically different? Shouldn't I analyse this factor in a two-factor ANOVA (Treatment x harvest) in order to separate the effects of treatments or harvests? Is it strictly necessary to present the standard deviation data in these Tables? Line 36 et seq. (Section 3.4). It does not refer to nutrient consumption, only water consumption. It would be convenient to express the results of WUE in the widely accepted sense of "amount of carbon assimilated per unit of water used by the crop and express it as such: (g· L-1). This should apply specifically to fig. 2B.

Lines 427 to 441. (Tables 7 and 8). The information contained in both tables is the same, expressed in a different way. Would it be sufficient to present Table 7 by eliminating Table 8? This would simplify reading and avoid unnecessary repetitions.

Lines 506-507 What do you mean by (used only in the first cycle)? There is only one crop cycle. Line 580.581. This conclusion is not supported by the results.

Lines 588 to 593. It presents results, not conclusions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find the reply in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents interesting and important research at the intersection of water management and food production technology in sustainable hydroponic systems. The authors used two types of wastewater (domestic and urban), performed their physicochemical analysis, and tested different treatment strategies (dilution and supplementation). This work is highly relevant to current challenges regarding the reduction of water use in agriculture and the implementation of a circular economy. However, the manuscript requires certain improvements before publication. I recommend a revision of the manuscript based on the following comments:

• Introduction/discussion: The authors should provide a more thorough description of the possibilities for reusing water and nutrients from hydroponic runoff. This is a very current topic being implemented in many countries worldwide. For example, techniques such as the precipitation of nutrients from hydroponic runoff and their subsequent re-dissolution and reuse, among others. This approach also enables the removal of Na and Cl from the nutrient solution. It is primarily relevant to high-biomass crops such as tomatoes. Including such discussion would create a background for the solutions proposed in the article, presenting them as one of many options available to operators, each with specific advantages and disadvantages that may vary depending on the crop and facility.

Materials and methods:

• Considering the large number of analyses and the complexity of the experiment, I suggest adding a diagram illustrating the scope and flow of the research; this would significantly improve the article's readability and increase its citation potential.
• Line 168, 176, 270, 281: although these are present in the text, the formulas lack equation numbers and units.

Discussion

• Phytotoxicity assessment: There is no argumentation provided for choosing the test on Lepidium sativum instead of Eruca vesicaria, which was used in the main experiments.
• It would be valuable to compare the impact of the wastewater between Lepidium sativum (as a reference plant) and the test crop Eruca vesicaria.

Author Response

Please find the reply in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all the reviewer’s comments, providing both clarifications and justification for their decisions not to introduce certain improvements suggested for the article.