Effectiveness of Polyvinylidene Fluoride Fibers (PVDF) in the Diffusion and Adsorption Processes of Atrazine in a Sandy Soil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

For the study, there must be some minor points to be enlightened before publication:

How can PVDF with atrazine be eliminated? Is atrazine regained and used? Is it possible to regenerate the PVDV?

What is the mechanism or possible interaction sources between the PVDF and atrazine? Can it be possible to show a scheme summarizing all?

Is the material PVDF or the process reproducible, or can it be regenerated?

Are the measurements repeated enough time for the statement?

 

Author Response

The comments for the reviewer are in the pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “Effectiveness of Polyvinylidene Fluoride Fibers (PVDF) in The Diffusion and Adsorption Processes of Atrazine in a Sandy Soil” evaluates the capacity of atrazine absorption by PVDF fibers. The manuscript lacks fundamental information on this type of material. The first phrases in Abstract should be summarized, also numerical results needed to be included. Most figures are hazy and not clear. Highlight the novelty of the conducted research. References like 1, 16 & 17 should be corrected according to the Journal standards. Add the references taken to Equations 2, 3 & 6. I think that the manuscript can be considered again after finding the mentioned comments.

minor checking 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2's comments are in the pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

A number of corrections have to be made, as follows:

1. The abbreviation of the uniformity coefficient (Cc) and the curvature coefficient (Cc), cannot be the same - See page 2

2. the units of specific gravity could be taken as mg/m3 but not Mg/m3. Also SI units should be followed in this regard

3. When you refer to a previous work of any researcher, mention the name(s) then the reference number. Examples: Ref 16 and 17 on page 2 and 18 on page 3

4. Chk the abbreviation of the unified soil classification system on page 3

5. what do you mean by "location" in the "chemical analysis " section, line 3?

6. There is no need to have a "well-known" calibration curve according to B-L law. Also it is not required to mention the B-L law, as it is WELL KNOWN. It'd be much better to replace Figure 6 by an actual calibration curve of your work.

7. Figures 9-12 do not have a statistical analysis of the measurements. Do these figures represent single measurement at every point? If yes, then you cannot draw any conclusions based on these results.

8. The same applies to the values listed in Tables 1-4, where no standard deviation values were shown.

9. Also the visibility of the numbers and symbols in each of the 4 figures (9-12) is very weak. The size of the font and the symbols should be increased to make them more readable.

10. There is a problem with the font size of line 359 that starts with: "Finally, ....)

The manuscript needs a thorough revision of its language language. A number of typo mistakes has been observed.

Author Response

The answers to Reviewer 3's questions are in the pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The present form of the manuscript is sufficiently answering the queries made before on the manuscript, and I recommend its publication in the present format.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all comments. I recommend accepting the manuscript.