Decontamination and Remediation of Underground Holes and Testing of Cleaning Techniques Based on the Use of Liquid Cold Decontaminant
, Adriano Marin 2, Francesco Rizzo 3, Francesco Massaro 3, Mattia Masiero 2, Paolo Panizzolo 2, Claudio Lesca 4, Alessia Pratolongo 4, Paolo Manzone 5 and Fabio Giannetti 3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article sustainability-1830316 describes Decontamination and remediation of underground holes and testing of cleaning techniques based on the use of liquid cold decontaminant. Before reaching out any decision some of my suggestions/comments needs to be addressed to reach the final decision and to enhance the quality of this article.
1. Abstract needs to be changed and the obtained results should be incorporated more efficiently in the abstract.
2. The introduction part of the manuscript is very poorly written and needs to be enhanced by comparing and quoting the latest reports. Latest references and works need to be addressed for comparison purpose.
3. Conclusion should be enhanced by adding the results.
4. All the figures are of low quality, replace the figures with high quality scale markers and uniform fonts should be used.
5. English language needs to polish throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
the point by point response is here atttached. Thanks for your revision
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the abstract, the defination of problems is too long, while there is an absence of results. The abbreviation that first appears should be explained.
Some results are not clearly shown in the main text. For example, Table 5 should be revised to a figuire to see the change of Cs with wash number.
This manuscript was presented with poor arrangement. The authors should revise it carefully.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
the point by point response is here attached. Thanks for your revision
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
work is not interesting, need to work again.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
the point by point response for the other reviews and the work done was inserted in the attached file. Thanks for your revision
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors replied all the comments in an efficient way, now this paper can be accepted as it is without further change.
Author Response
Thank you for the comment. A new check has been made to the text in order to improve the language used.
Reviewer 3 Report
After revision, MS is improved. Still minor language changes are required.
Author Response
Thank you for the advice. A new check has been made for improving the language used.
