High-Efficiency Microplastic Sampling Device Improved Using CFD Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

#Generally, there are many grammar errors, typos and mistakes in technical writing. And reduce the wordiness of the whole manuscript. Some errors are pointed out below. 

Lines 11- 12: “…studies on their collection, pretreatment, and analysis from environmental media such as water…”

corrected=> “…studies on their environmental samplings, pretreatments and analyses …”

Line 14: “…particularly because microplastics…” check this sentence and correct it.

Line 30: “…has attracted attention…” ? 

Line 85: SEM stands for what? “Scanning electron microscope” or “scanning emission microscope.”

Line 94: Check and correct the grammar in this sentence. 

Table 7 (typos)

Line 36-38: “However, research on microplastic sampling and analysis methods is being actively conducted, and ISO standardization is in progress. (grammar)

Topic : “Device for Low Cross-Contamination and High-Efficiency Sampling of Microplastics Less Than 20 μm in Size from Water” This topic is tangled. It does not facilitate unique attraction to your research. Make an attractive and clear topic.

 

Abstract:

Line 13: “However, a standard sampling and pretreatment method does not yet exist.” This argument is a little bit misleading. Plenty of successive methods have been developed and used worldwide effectively. So make this statement more accurate. 

 

Abstract should be re-write. It isn't easy to deliver your idea to the readers with this abstract. This is not a good summary of your research.

Line 15-24: What did you do as your research? Include a brief and precise summary of your methodology as 1-2 lines into the abstract. Remove unnecessary information. Then briefly write your major outcomes, conclusion and/or future research suggestions (if you have any). 

 

Introduction:

Line 36-38: “However, research on microplastic sampling and analysis methods are being actively conducted, and ISO standardization is in progress [16]” Is this presented in that paper?

 “Questions of size and numbers in environmental research on microplastics: methodological and conceptual aspects” written by FILELLA, Montserrat.  

 

Include the citations for the findings presented in figure 1 and table 1.

The introduction has mixed up with the data and conclusions.

Line 66-67: This is a conclusion.

Line 68-69: These are observations. 

What are the targets of this research?

 

Materials & Methods

In figures 2a,b,c values of diameters are not visible, so improve the image.

tables 2 and 3 

First column is Cumulative diameter and again Diameter in the first row? Then what is the d? Define the d below the table and remove unnecessary words.

Fig 3 use abbreviations.

Line 158: Include the equation number and mention it in line 157.

Line 273-283: You have only presented the data should be added an adequate discussion about the recovery rate. Compare your observations with the previous research and discuss the efficiency of the device.

 

Combine discuss these topics “Changes in flow velocity and turbulences after the modifications in the sampling device” and “the effectiveness of the new technique over conventional methods.”

 

Conclusion

This section is too lengthy. Try to summarize. Do not use the same text repeatedly (Line 309-310, 322-325,327-238). What are the main findings of this research?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study, the main question addressed by the research is:

Using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and microplastic reference materials, a microplastic sample apparatus was created and assessed that excludes plastics from all processes, minimizes contamination, and exhibits a high recovery rate.

 

This paper suggests a new apparatus that has been used on microplastics as small as 20 m that are susceptible to contamination in addition to the relatively bigger microplastics (100 m) previously investigated. With this device, five different types of plastics were recovered at a rate of 94.2%, and the particles were separated by filtration through a three-stage cassette.

 

I found the paper interesting to read and enjoyed it. The topic is relevant to the field. And tries to enhance the interest in microplastics.

 

I found the study adequate.

 

The conclusion is well written.

 

I found that the references are appropriate.

 

I have no additional comments on the tables and figures.

 

I found the minor revision suggestion as follows:  “Can you please consider adding a paragraph for the importance of the CFD analysis performed to identify the shape and flow velocity of turbulence that may occur during sampling”

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx