Review Reports - Biosorption Capability of Chitosan for Removal of Cs-137 and/or Co-60 from Radioactive Waste Solution Simulates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors;

Thank very much for considering the suggestions and advices exposed in the first round. You have significantly improved the structure of the manuscript. I humble suggest its publication in the present form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your time.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the dedication and professionalism you demonstrated throughout this process. Your cooperation has been vital, and I am confident that the improvements implemented will significantly enhance the success of your work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your time.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your time.

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript in improved somehow as compared to the original submission. However other issues need to solve.

All the materials information such as city country needs to be mentioned materials section.

All figures need to be redrawn in scientific software. Don’t copy and paste directly from instrument software.

Chitosan is used many times in the manuscript, please define its abbreviation and use it afterward.

Write 2 as a subscript in line 73.

Indicate this manuscript in the text, International Journal of biological macromolecules 136 (2019) 661-667 preferably lines 68-88.

Line 117 is written as C, N, and H.

Sem image resolution is so poor. Particle size histogram curve needs.

Remove Figure 5.

Section 3.5 Write the equations in a proper format.

Write hr as h in the figure caption as well as in the text.

write the conclusions section into one paragraph, and write some important findings. Make it preciously.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor checking is needed.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions from Reviewer 4

The manuscript in improved somehow as compared to the original submission. However other issues need to solve.

Thank you for your efforts and your time. Other issues have been solved.

All the materials information such as city country needs to be mentioned materials section.

The required information has been mentioned.

All figures need to be redrawn in scientific software. Don’t copy and paste directly from instrument software.

All figures have been clarified as possible and some of them were redrawn by Excell.

Chitosan is used many times in the manuscript, please define its abbreviation and use it afterward.

Chitosan was abbreviated as CS in all the manuscript.

Write 2 as a subscript in line 73.

It was corrected.

Indicate this manuscript in the text, International Journal of biological macromolecules 136 (2019) 661-667 preferably lines 68-88.

This manuscript was included as a reference and indicated in the text.

Line 117 is written as C, N, and H.

It was revised.

Sem image resolution is so poor. Particle size histogram curve needs.

The image was maximized to clarify its contents.

Remove Figure 5.

It was removed.

Section 3.5 Write the equations in a proper format.

The equations were formatted properly.

Write hr as h in the figure caption as well as in the text.

It was modified as recommended.

write the conclusions section into one paragraph, and write some important findings. Make it preciously.

The conclusions section has been revised according comment.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors improved the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor checking is needed.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript needs critical major revision. Article structure need to arrange.

All figures should be drawn in scientific software. At present it is ok for a report not for the SCI journal.

English need to improved critically. Many grammar errors. Lack of reading flow.

In text font are different. Please make it as per journal guidelines.

In abstract include some quantitively data.

Line 66, 2 in NH2 write as subscript. Check throughout the manuscript.

Introduction doesn’t provide novelty of this paper. Need to improve and include other information related to this study. It is written as a report.

Fig. 1 to 5 its Chitosan data which commercial; what is the necessary to include.

No discussion,

Experimental method is not written proper way.

Declaration and Acknowledgement should be after references.

Overall it is not suitable for the publication in SCI journal. Manuscript needs to improve so much.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is poorly structured, and the authors have not written it properly, failing to follow journal standard guidelines. It contains numerous typographical errors, grammar issues, and poorly constructed sentences. The authors can resubmit it after making substantial corrections regarding the issues mentioned above.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors;

Thank you very much for allowing me to contribute to the quality of your work.

I found this manuscript very interesting and original. However, I take the boldness to point out two observations:

1) in some parts of the text the own results are confused with what existing in the literature. I strongly suggest moving (as much as possible) all literature information to the introductory part.

2) Please include more technical information regarding the nature of the free stock solutions of Cs-137 or Co-60 and mixture of both radionuclides you prepared. What concentrations of radionuclides in water did you prepare? ppm? What are the health risks and dangers? hygiene measures? This information is very important to warrant the reproducibility of your very important results by other scientists.

Sincerely

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article was interesting to read. The authors have given this much thought. Chitosan is a biosorbent that is readily available, affordable, renewable, and not harmful to the environment. Each aspect has been experimentally demonstrated. Overall, the manuscript is commendable. However, I have the following minor questions out of interest:

· I found a very similar document with a link to the given:

https://www.kgk-rubberpoint.de/wp-content/uploads/migrated/paid_content/artikel/10374.pdf

Nearly every experiment in the submitted manuscript was mentioned in this document; the titles even matched. Does this document inspire authors' ideas at a conceptual level? What makes the author's approach unique and distinct from this?

· As the concept of the study has already been there, the present study is exploratory, not conceptual. The biosorption efficiency of chitosan is often pH-dependent. Can all wastewater treatment scenarios easily maintain the optimal pH conditions for binding Cs-137 and Co-60? If it is not possible, it could impact the overall efficiency of the process. How can these issues be addressed?

· The presence of other ions in the wastewater, especially those with similar chemical properties to Cs-137 and Co-60, may compete for binding sites on chitosan. This competition can reduce chitosan's biosorption capacity and effectiveness for the targeted radionuclides. Did the author perform any additional experiments in this direction?

· As the author mentioned, like any biosorbent, Chitosan has a finite capacity for adsorbing radionuclides. The process may become less efficient as chitosan approaches saturation. Can it either be frequently replaced or regenerate the biosorbent?

· The stability of chitosan in the wastewater environment over an extended period is a concern. Any degradation of the chitosan material could lead to a decrease in its biosorption efficiency and effectiveness over time. Do the authors agree with this?

· It is well known that chitosan is often considered cost-effective. However, using chitosan as a biosorbent in wastewater treatment includes production, application, and regeneration costs. These factors may make alternative methods or materials more economically viable than the chitosan-based method. Please discuss with some examples.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is batter to modify the tittle of the manuscript.

Needs to minimize the similarity index, which is more than the standard requirements.

How confidently authors claim that the presented article possess some kind of novelty? And, how it meets the modern mechanical and industrial application.

At several places in the text the word spacing has not been taken care of. A spell check should be applied to cope up with the problem.

Reference style is not uniform. It should be as per required style of journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

must be improved

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Figure 1 is strange, it looks like wrong. The elemental analysis must be carefully checked.

The procedure to determine Adsorption efficiency must be carefully explained.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

the language, typewriting and grammar must be improved.