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.
Your manuscript is much improved and it can be accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gwyn Gould, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The paper is well –written/clear and unambiguous. As per previous reviewer comments, required modification has done. Structure conforms to PeerJ standards, discipline norm.
Original research
Appropriate methods are used
Obtained data are valid
This original research paper may attain the required quality/ standards to publish in Peer J journal.
- Please indicate whether the water lettuce is promising regarding production scale, availability, and sustainability use as feedstock for methane production.
- Improve the Introduction and provide rationales for the research, particularly the contribution of water lettuce to biogas production compared to other plants.
- English should be improved.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# 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 work is average but may be improved by the inclusion of the following suggestions. The manuscript can be a fair contribution if properly revised. The quality of science is mediocre. As it is not very readable, most of the findings could be shown rather as Tables instead of text.
The writing and grammar of the manuscript should be carefully checked to resolve some existing errors and provide smooth text.
The aim and its application have not been clearly described. What are the environmental benefits of using water lettuce for biogas production and pollutant removal?
Acceptable
How does the use of water lettuce as a substrate for biogas production compare to other renewable energy sources, such as solar or wind power?
How can water lettuce be integrated into wastewater treatment systems to improve energy efficiency and sustainability? How can we optimize the growth and production of water lettuce to increase its efficacy as a renewable energy substrate and pollutant remover?
What are the economic implications of using water lettuce for biogas production, and how do they compare to traditional fossil fuel sources?
In the Introduction section, please outline the main aim, objectives, and research questions clearly and articulate the research questions to the significance of the work. The review of the literature needs more updating with works to have a clear and concise state-of-the-art analysis. You may see and cite these articles: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2142; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00449-022-02749-1; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653522029642; What is water lettuce, and how does it contribute to biogas effluent pollutant removal? What factors affect the growth and production of water lettuce as a renewable energy substrate?
In general, this manuscript is well-written, concise, and presents relevant information based on theory. While the methods used are generally appropriate, there are some details that require clarification. Overall, the study's results are clear and compelling, with only a few minor exceptions. The authors make a systematic contribution to the research literature in this area of investigation.
Used appropriate methods
accepted
Specific comments will follow,
1.The authors need to incorporate more content in introduction section regarding AD effluent characterization with suitable reference
2. Water hyacinth has good pollution removal potential. Why is water lettuce used for this study? Why not water hyacinth?
3. Is any microbe (living in the root of lettuce) involved in the treatment?
4. What is the reason for higher production of methane from water lettuce? Add the scientific reason in biogas composition section with appropriate scientific evidence.
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.