All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The paper has been improved after revisions and is accepted for publication. Thanks for your fine contribution to PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comments
No comment
No comment
Paper is ready for publication in my opinion. Authors truely incorporated what I inquired.
I appreciate the authors' careful revision. My comments have been fully addressed, and I have no further comments. I recommend that this manuscript be accepted for publication.
no comment
no comment
Please incorporate the comments of all reviewers. Additionally, the language of the paper needs attention to improve.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The paper is written nicely. However, following changes are suggested to increase its effectiveness.
Abstract: Direct results are written. It is better to write 2-3 lines, why this study is important to conduct. What methods/material you used for this study.
At the end of Abstract, write a line what is new in your study or what are implications of your results.
Introduction: Introduction is written nicely except last paragraph should be finished at " why and to what extent this study is different from previous literature Effects of hydraulic retention time and influent nitrate
2 concentration on solid-phase denitrification system". Discuss the why this study is necessary to conduct?
Material and Methods is written nicely. Accept my appreciation
Results are exactly obtained as methodology adopted. well-done!. My concern is that it is not fully justified based on updated past literature.
Conclusion: This part is written in hurry and is too short, hardly 7 lines. Discuss your own findings based on result obtained. See how your results different/similar with past studies and why and address this. What is novelty and what is left (future research) so that readers can take benefits from your study.
In the nutshell, study is conducted nicely with minor revision. I am waiting the comments to be address suggested by me.
The study investigated the use of wheat husk (WH) as a carbon source to enhance denitrification in a solid reverse nitrification system. Authors evaluated the system operating under different hydraulic retention times (HRTs) and influent nitrate concentrations (INCs). Wheat husk as a waste from agriculture, recycling them in the denitrification will contribute to the development of sustainable agriculture.
The experiment design in this study is simple, but abundant data was collected. English language is OK, though typos can be found. The authors should proofread the manuscript carefully to catch any other errors. Overall, this is a well-conducted study with meaningful findings. My questions focused on the materials and methods and the presentation of the results, as can be found in my following comments.
1. Line 57-60: Please be consistent in the name of nitrogen. Since you explained the abbreviation of ammonia nitrogen, you should also explain nitrite nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen. In line 60, please revise ‘low NH4+-N level and high nitrate accumulation’. Please also check the whole manuscript for similar problems.
2. Line 113: What is the cleaning procedure?
3. Please explain the abbreviation of dissolved oxygen in materials and methods (at first appearance).
4. There are some typos in the figure 5 caption.
5. Authors introduced there were 3 replicates in this experiment. Therefore, in Table 1, instead of presenting the range of the results, it is preferred to present the mean and standard deviation/error and do mean separations as in other figures/tables. Besides, ‘phase’ is confusing here. I would expect from phase 1 to phase 7 to be a continuous period. However, they were not.
no comment
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.