Production of forest seedlings using sewage sludge and automated irrigation with ozonated cattle wastewater

Laiz de Oliveira Silva; Henrique Vieira Mendonça; Bruno Antonio Augusto Faria Conforto; Marinaldo Ferreira Pinto; Daniel Fonseca de Carvalho

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276633

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 15, 2022
22 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Shijian Ge, Editor PONE-D-22-17230PRODUCTION OF FOREST SEEDLINGS USING SEWAGE SLUDGE AND OZONATED CATTLE WASTEWATER: A POTENTIAL FOR CIRCULAR ECONOMYPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Carvalho, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 06 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Shijian Ge, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained to collect samples for the present study. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 4. Please include a copy of Table 2 which you refer to in your text on page 14. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 1. References are not well cited. Kindly update those; for example in line 80. 2. Introduction is not clear, i hope that they will make investigate the current methods' advantages disadvantages and finally propose their research work. Line 110-112, you have proposed your work and why its necessary? 3. Kindly make a comparison of currently available methods and compare your research results with them. Reviewer #2: The study represents the application of sewage sludge and cattle wastewater (CWW) to produce forest seedlings, attempting to reduce the release of waste and effluents into the environment. Generally, the results/findings are fine but some points should be considered before acceptance: 1- The title includes the expression “Circular Economy”; however, it disappeared throughout the manuscript!! Why? 2- Do not repeat the words in the title to the “keywords”. 3- In the Introduction part, give some examples from the literature for the application of sewage/waste for forest seedlings. 4- The last paragraph of Introduction should include the study objectives/procedures in brief. 5- The study should unveil the major gaps within the existing knowledge of the sewage/waste utilization for forest seedlings. 6- Are there any results for control run, without using sewage/waste? 7- The results should be enriched with statistical explanations. 8- The abstract and conclusion sections should be improved to show the main research findings. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276633.r001
Revision 1
13 Sep 2022 Author Response To the Editorial Board of PLOS ONE Dear Editor, We would like to thank you for your message and for the reviewer’s comments on our manuscript (PONE-D-22-17230), entitled “Production of forest seedlings using sewage sludge and ozonated cattle wastewater: a potential for circular economy”. We have modified the manuscript in response to the relevant and constructive reviewer comments. We highlight the modifications referring to the comments of the Reviewer 1 in red, and the Reviewer 2 in blue, and in green we present some modifications that, although they were not mentioned by the reviewers, also contributed to the improvement of the text, according to our judgment. It is worth mentioning that due to one of the comments by Reviewer #2, the title of the article was changed. We hope the revised version is now suitable for publication, however we are available for any clarifications. In the sequence we present the Responses to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer. Best regards, Daniel Fonseca de Carvalho (Corresponding author) Journal Requirements 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: all the format, style and names are checked. 2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained to collect samples for the present study. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. Response: Thanks for the comment. The experiment was carried out at a public university, where some authors are professors and others are undergraduate and graduate students. Therefore, there was no need for formal authorization to carry out this study. This information was included in lines 128-129. 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Response: The main data collected in the field experiment were made available in the journal's system. 4. Please include a copy of Table 2 which you refer to in your text on page 14. Response: Indeed, at the time of submission, the numbering of the tables was changed due to text links. This has been fixed in the new version. Responses to the reviewer’s comments Reviewer #1 1. References are not well cited. Kindly update those; for example in line 80. Response: All references have been checked and adapted to the journal's rules. Thanks. 2. Introduction is not clear, i hope that they will make investigate the current methods' advantages disadvantages and finally propose their research work. Line 110-112, you have proposed your work and why its necessary? Response: Changes have been made to the text in the paragraph citing the benefits of ozonation (lines 82-29). 3. Kindly make a comparison of currently available methods and compare your research results with them. Response: In lines 79-81, we have mentioned the main methodologies for secondary treatment using advanced oxidation processes, recommended for organic effluents. However, in this study we used the ozonation methodology and no comparisons were made between CWW treatment methodologies. Reviewer #2: The study represents the application of sewage sludge and cattle wastewater (CWW) to produce forest seedlings, attempting to reduce the release of waste and effluents into the environment. Generally, the results/findings are fine but some points should be considered before acceptance: 1- The title includes the expression “Circular Economy”; however, it disappeared throughout the manuscript!! Why? Response: You are right: we included this expression because it represents the logic of our study, by reusing waste and cycling nutrients that would be lost and potentially polluting if disposed of incorrectly. However, although our technique fits the principles of the circular economy, we did not emphasize this in the text and chose to change the title. 2- Do not repeat the words in the title to the “keywords”. Response: with the new title, the keywords were changed and we chose to add the term "circular economy". 3- In the Introduction part, give some examples from the literature for the application of sewage/waste for forest seedlings. Response: We did not find in the literature studies that used cattle wastewater in the production of forest seedlings. However, studies carried out with sewage sludge were cited in lines 97 to 99. 4- The last paragraph of Introduction should include the study objectives/procedures in brief. Response: The text referring to the objective of the study is presented in lines 117 to 119. 5- The study should unveil the major gaps within the existing knowledge of the sewage/waste utilization for forest seedlings. Response: As we commented in one of the answers, the use of sewage sludge for the production of seedlings of tree species has increased in Brazil, but in none of the studies that have already been carried out has been used cattle water. Thus, we understand that this is a great contribution of our article. 6- Are there any results for control run, without using sewage/waste? Response: thanks for your comment. Research groups from our University, in the forestry area, have been working with sewage sludge for many years, but without quantifying the volume of water applied in the production of forest seedlings. We started studying the water requirements of seedlings in 2018, maintaining the theme of using sewage sludge as a substrate for seedlings. Therefore, we did not intend to evaluate the growth of seedlings in another type of substrate. We intend to make this comparison in the next experiments. Thanks. 7- The results should be enriched with statistical explanations. Response: Although no results were found for the production of seedlings with CWW, the results of the study were compared with those obtained using water from the T1 treatment (lines 339-343; 368-369; 396-397; 401-404; 437-439). 8- The abstract and conclusion sections should be improved to show the main research findings. Response: the text has been changed. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276633.r002
11 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Shijian Ge, Editor Production of forest seedlings using sewage sludge and automated irrigation with ozonated cattle wastewater PONE-D-22-17230R1 Dear Dr. Daniel Fonseca de Carvalho, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Shijian Ge, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The authors' responses are satisfactory. Essential experiment would be used as a control run, without using sewage/waste ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Assoc. Prof. Mahmoud Nasr ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276633.r003
Formally Accepted
21 Oct 2022 Acceptance Letter - Shijian Ge, Editor PONE-D-22-17230R1 Production of forest seedlings using sewage sludge and automated irrigation with ozonated cattle wastewater Dear Dr. Carvalho: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor Shijian Ge Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276633.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .