hi,<br />Today I received reviewers' comments and critized the language which was unclear. subsequently the paper was rejected. I'd like to ask you to either re-editing or refund my previous payment.<br /><br />Let me know soon. Below is reviewers' comments from your edited document I submitted.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;">reviewer 1#: The text is written rather carelessly and in an often imprecise, misleading or otherwise problematic language.<br /><br />reviewer 2#: <span style="font-size: small;">Lines 676-677: I do not understand the sentence "Applying solar panels &hellip; physical-chemical remediation".</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;">Lines 223-225: "While different removal processes may affect treatment efficiency, the treatment process type did not affect the removal of cVMS": I do not understand this sentence.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;">Lines 240-241: "the &hellip; shorter hydraulic retention times (1-2 hours) in secondary treatment favor both siloxane desorption from solids and their subsequent volatilization": I do not understand this sentence. One could conclude from it that even shorter times, say 15 min, will achieve even higher removal of siloxanes. Compare this sentence to the one above (lines 233-234) which says just the opposite: "The high volatilization rates &hellip; may be due to longer retention times &hellip;".</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;">Lines 347-349: "The ability of gas scrubbers to treat siloxanes in biogas indicates that siloxanes still remain in the absorbent &hellip; and separate from the biogas once it cools prior to entering the scrubber": I do not understand this sentence.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;">Line 149 I do not know why lack of regulation and guideline needed to have reliable data? the sentence is not clear </span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></span>