Response of Physicochemical and Microbiological Properties to the Application of Effective Microorganisms in the Water of the Turawa Reservoir
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors aim to evaluate the effect of Effective Microorganisms in some parameters of water quality.
In general, the manuscript is well written. It is suitable for publication, just needs some corrections and clarify some aspects. Please see the comments below:
Line 11: Add “Effective Microorganisms (EM)”, because is the first time it is used.
Line 18-19: Define the control date.
Line 77: Is the rainfall concentrated in a specific period of the year?
Line 93: Write the concentration in scientific notation or log (CFU)/g.
Line 127: Rewrite the paragraph. Tenfold dilutions of the samples were performed in (buffer used) to be analysed by pour plate method in (name of the nutrient agar).
Line 142: add some information about the method, is a quantitative, qualitative?
Line 165: “Electrical conductivity (EC).
Line 240: Express the results in log (CFU)/ml
Line 253-260: Rewrite this paragraph in order to clarify that heterotrophic bacteria indicates the total amount of culturable bacteria with the capability to grow in those conditions. It could indicate the quality of water, but it is not showing if these bacteria is allochthonous or autochthonous.
The authors analysed three different faecal indicator bacteria and one pathogen (Salmonella spp.). These bacteria are allochthonous of the water and arrived there because of the wildlife, the agricultural runoff and point pollution of domestic wastewater. Please, provide more information about the origin of these bacteria. Have you checked any parameter of faecal source tracking?
Author Response
Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 1)
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your effort involved in preparing the review of our manuscript entitled: ”Response of physicochemical and microbiological properties to the application of Effective Microorganisms in the water of the Turawa reservoir”
Line 11: Add “Effective Microorganisms (EM)”, because is the first time it is used.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have corrected it.
Line 18-19: Define the control date.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have done it.
Line 77: Is the rainfall concentrated in a specific period of the year?
Response: We have added the average rainfall for 2021 and August.
Line 93: Write the concentration in scientific notation or log (CFU)/g.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have changed it.
Line 127: Rewrite the paragraph. Tenfold dilutions of the samples were performed in (buffer used) to be analysed by pour plate method in (name of the nutrient agar).
Response: Thank you for your comment, we changed it according to your recommendations.
Line 142: add some information about the method, is a quantitative, qualitative?
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added more information in the manuscript.
Line 165: “Electrical conductivity (EC).
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have done it.
Line 240: Express the results in log (CFU)/ml
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have done it.
Line 253-260: Rewrite this paragraph in order to clarify that heterotrophic bacteria indicates the total amount of culturable bacteria with the capability to grow in those conditions. It could indicate the quality of water, but it is not showing if these bacteria is allochthonous or autochthonous.
Response: Thank you for your comment. This is important information improving this issue. We rewrote this paragraph.
The authors analysed three different faecal indicator bacteria and one pathogen (Salmonella spp.). These bacteria are allochthonous of the water and arrived there because of the wildlife, the agricultural runoff and point pollution of domestic wastewater. Please, provide more information about the origin of these bacteria. Have you checked any parameter of faecal source tracking?
Response: Presence of these faecal bacteria can be caused by point pollution from nearby boats or resorts, but we have insufficient information to unambiguously state.
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript ID: water-1487727
Improving and monitoring the quality of surface waters is a priority task. The manuscript examines the quality of the water in a contaminated reservoir after the addition of EM biopreparation. Several forms of the EM are internationally known e.g. to improve soil quality. For the treatment of natural waters, it is still less common.
The aim of the authors „to evaluate the impact of the EM technology on water quality” measuring some physicochemical and biological parameters.
The research took place in a separate area of ​​the reservoir. Unfortunately, it was not clear how deep the floating dam had reached, so we do not know how separated the study area was from the untreated water. The authors mention that this is the most polluted reservoir in Poland, but do not provide data to support this (e.g. COD, TOC, turbidity, phytoplankton biomass or chlorophyll-a content). It is not entirely clear whether phosphorus and nitrogen loads continue to enter the reservoir from its surroundings. This would be very important information for the long-term study of the efficiency of EM augmentation and the cost-effectiveness of its use, as it involves a water volume of about 108 million m3.
The changes resulting from EM treatment are not consistent enough, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions from the results obtained. As some environmental parameters (temperature) changed by the end of the experimental period, it would have been important to sample the untreated water (control) to compare the physicochemical and biological results of the EM-treated samples. The manuscript needs to be supplemented and clarified at several points.
Detailed comments:
Line 80: the height of the floating dam dimensions was missing. This would be a particularly important parameter, given that the depth of the reservoir is 4-5 m.
Line 81: the exact name of the company is required (ProBiotics Polska - if I know right). There are several types of EM preparations available in the market. Which preparation did the authors use?
Line 93: The authors wrote: „the application area was 1000m2”…But, the separated area was 50x15 m, it is 750 m2 as i counted well. Was this an incorrect calculation or is there a reason for the discrepancy?
Line 93: The word ’biomass’ is uncountable
Line 95: the date of the EM application was 08.09.2021.
A few lines later= line 103: …”- 09.08.2021 (I – control date, before EM”…
Was there a sampling in August as well, or was there just a typo in line 100? „In August 2021”…
Line 100: …”total of 108 water samples”… I think the authors had only 54 samples according to the lines 1001-105: 3 sampling points x at 2 depth x 3 dates x 3 in paralell (3x2x3x3=54)
The authors sampled the reservoir from two depths, these were not separated in the figures. Were the data from the two sampling points averaged? Are the larger standard deviations in some figures caused by significant differences in the data from the two depths?
Author Response
Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 2)
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your effort involved in preparing the review of our manuscript entitled: ”Response of physicochemical and microbiological properties to the application of Effective Microorganisms in the water of the Turawa reservoir”
The authors mention that this is the most polluted reservoir in Poland, but do not provide data to support this (e.g. COD, TOC, turbidity, phytoplankton biomass or chlorophyll-a content). It is not entirely clear whether phosphorus and nitrogen loads continue to enter the reservoir from its surroundings.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion, we have added two general sentences about reservoir pollution.
Detailed comments:
Line 80: the height of the floating dam dimensions was missing. This would be a particularly important parameter, given that the depth of the reservoir is 4-5 m.
Response: Thank you for your comment. In the experimental area, the water depth did not exceed 2 meters, therefore the water change could be on the marginal level. We have introduced the information about height in the manuscript.
Line 81: the exact name of the company is required (ProBiotics Polska - if I know right). There are several types of EM preparations available in the market. Which preparation did the authors use?
Response: We have changed the name of the company to Lower Silesian Technology and Innovation Accelerator Ltd. - the company cooperating with ProBiotics Poland, but this company was responsible for the EM application - in any case, these both companies operate on ProBiotics SD licence.
Line 93: The authors wrote: „the application area was 1000m2”…But, the separated area was 50x15 m, it is 750 m2 as i counted well. Was this an incorrect calculation or is there a reason for the discrepancy?
Response: Thank you for your comment, this is obviously our mistake; improvement has been made.
Line 93: The word ’biomass’ is uncountable
Response: Thank you for your comment, we have corrected it.
Line 95: the date of the EM application was 08.09.2021.
A few lines later= line 103: …”- 09.08.2021 (I – control date, before EM”…
Was there a sampling in August as well, or was there just a typo in line 100? „In August 2021”…
Response: Thank you for your comment, this is obviously our mistake; we have changed it.
Line 100: …”total of 108 water samples”… I think the authors had only 54 samples according to the lines 1001-105: 3 sampling points x at 2 depth x 3 dates x 3 in paralell (3x2x3x3=54)
Response: The ”total of 108 water samples” was due to the fact that we took samples separately for physicochemical and microbiological analysis. We have changed it in the manuscript.
The authors sampled the reservoir from two depths, these were not separated in the figures. Were the data from the two sampling points averaged? Are the larger standard deviations in some figures caused by significant differences in the data from the two depths?
Response: Thank you very much for this comment. Unfortunately, there is a mistake in the methods section (it results from copying this information by mistake), thus later there is no information about the two depths. According to the literature and the Regulation of the Minister of Health (on supervising water quality in water bodies used for bathing and at bathing sites), we chose a depth of 30 cm.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors reviewed the text and clarified every detail as requested.
Author Response
Thank you for all comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
