Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on December 31st, 2013 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on January 27th, 2014.
  • The first revision was submitted on March 14th, 2014 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on March 17th, 2014.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

You will be contacted by the PeerJ staff for further improving written English.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

I noticed that several long sentences in this manuscript were taken from the authors' previous publications. Thus, they should be amended in a proper manner.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

No Comments

Experimental design

No Comments

Validity of the findings

No Comments

Comments for the author

This article applies granular anammox process for removing ammonia in swine manure. The highest ammonium removal rate can be upon 98%. However, increasing the concentration of COD until 2320 mg COD/L caused lower ammonium removal rate (66.9%). Furthermore, results indicated that denitrifying bacteria may help to remove nitrite, nitrate and organic carbon. This study proofed that anammox can effectively treat swine manure. There are some comments that may further enhance the quality of this article.
1. There are some mistakes in English. Authors can ask native English speaker to revise current manuscript.
2. Although this field may be a relatively new topic, to compare the performance in this study with other literatures can enhance the comprehension of audience. Authors are also encouraged to cite more recent papers related to various wastewaters treated by anammox process.
3. Since the results indicated that denitrifying bacteria may help to remove nitrite, authors should provide some direct evidences such as image of electrophoresis loading samples from reactions of polymerase chain reaction, which using denitrified specific primers.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

This paper presnts the results on the possibility of using granular anammox process for ammonia removal from swine waste. Also, the study focused on the effects of COD/N ratio on the performance of the process. Both are meaningful to application and research.

Experimental design

Logic.

Validity of the findings

Data suppots the findings and major conclusions.

Comments for the author

May need to notice on the aspects below:
The effects of C/N on the process is complex, may involve the facts i. NH3, which relates to NH4 concentration; and ii. the denitrification functions which some anammox species can play. It might be helpful to discuss these points in the disccsion part.

In fact according to the findings presented high COD makes the current process to treat swine waste low efficiecny. A improved pre-treatment to low down feed COD may be necessary. It may need to say in the conclusion part.

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.