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 satisfactory revised revised and can now be accepted.
I would suggest the authors to revise the manuscript carefully. The results section need lot of restructuring and addition of graphs/representation. The data needs to be integrated with the findings.
The introduction still lacks a connection between the paragraphs. Each paragraph currently talks about a discrete topic. There has to be connecting lines between the paragraphs.
What is the relevance of section 2.2 in the methods sections? This kind of information should go into the discussion or introduction sections.
There is a mix of active and passive voice throughout the text. Please fix. Sometimes hour is written as h and other times as hour. Please stick to one format.
3.3 lacks sufficient information
3.4 The results do not contain data. If a reader reads the paragraph without seeing the graphs, they will not get any idea of what is happening. The measured data (numbers) need to be written out in the paragraphs.
The manuscript currently lacks any experimental design. The authors have shown culture plates but the methods provide no information on it. The site map has not been cited in the text.
It is difficult to comment based on information currently provided.
The authors need to revise the manuscript meticulously. Both the reviewers have provided very useful comments which will help the authors to revise the manuscript.
I strongly suggest to do a better literature review. I have made suggestions throughout the text in the attached pdf. Please do the necessary corrections. Additionally, please look at how the information is written in other papers
Search WWTP microbes in scholar.google.com to see how such papers can be written.
You need to write in details as to what you did. Please remove the explanations and write only what you did.
Write only what you have found in your experiment.
Add all other explanations in the discussion section. Discussion can not be one paragraph
Pérez-Méndez analysed anthropogenic effect on Silencio river in Mexico. I find the study interesting with detailed background on the impact of wastewater treatment plants on microogranisms and health of environment.
The manuscript provided many details on the heavy metals and discharge quality of the effluents. The article structure is informative. The abstract needs to be in line with the main question analysed in the study.
The 24-1 factorial design of the study needs more details. There are not much details provided on qualitative methods followed to collect data on heavy metals, oxygen content etc.
The data analysis needs more details.
No comments
It is not clear how useful these finding are considering there are previous studies conducted on this system.
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.