Diatom-Based Photobiological Treatment of Reverse Osmosis Concentrate: Optimization of Light and Temperature and Biomass Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I appreciate the opportunity to review your article. Upon initial evaluation, I noticed similarities between this manuscript and a previous publication by the corresponding author (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/4052). While the RO concentrate samples differ, there are significant overlaps in methodology and content. To address potential issues related to similarity checks, I request the following revisions:

Methodology Section: Completely rewrite the methodology section, ensuring proper citation of your previously published work when the same methods are used. I observed that a significant portion of the methodology is almost identical to the prior publication.

Abstract: Revise the abstract to clearly highlight the new insights and contributions of this study. Avoid repetition of content from the earlier publication to ensure both articles provide distinct and novel contributions.

Introduction: Clearly state the novelty of the present work. Highlight the bottlenecks or unanswered questions from the previously published article (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/4052) that necessitated this study. Explicitly differentiate this study from the prior publication by postulating the working hypothesis and describing the unique approach employed.

Figure 1: Replace Figure 1 with a new schematic or diagram (drawn), as the current version is highly similar to the one in the earlier publication (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/4052). By addressing these concerns and revising the manuscript accordingly, you will provide readers with a clearer understanding of the unique contributions of this work. Once these revisions have been made, I will be pleased to review the revised manuscript

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focuses on the recovery of silica for the purpose of water resource recycling. This paper determines the optimal temperature and light conditions for recovering silica using diatoms Gedaniella flavovirens Psetr3. The research is well-organized, but there are some points of concern.

In Table 1, are the units of the values consistent with those in the Water Quality Parameters section? The position of the units seems inappropriate.

Please clarify what "Hach 8000 series" refers to.

In the experiments depicted in Figures 2, 3, and 4, the amount of reactive silica changes after 96 h. However, I cannot find the methodology used for this.

Does the diatom grow in the reaction? If diatom grow, why is there no increase in reactive silica consumption?

Is the initial biomass amount at 96 h consistent at initial (0 hour)? Does the reaction system contain an excess of diatoms? This is unclear.

Furthermore, each experiment showed "The average silica uptake rate (mg/L/day)". Does this data reflect the initial biomass concentration?

Is there a possibility that the data could fluctuate depending on the initial biomass amount? It might be better to present the data in a way that allows for direct comparison.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed your revised manuscript entitled "Diatom-Based Photobiological Treatment of Reverse Osmosis Concentrate: Optimization of Light and Temperature and Biomass Analysis." Your responses to my comments and the modifications you have made have clarified the differences, thereby justifying the publication of this work.